You're right to apologize for this post you made.
Have you read the novel? Because what you're describing doesn't match with what's in the tale.
That you call him "Von" Frankenstein is part of why I don't think you know the story as well as you seem to think you do. Quite frankly, the idea that he "repeatedly does truly terrible things" isn't present in the tale. At best it's alluded to, with him making veiled remarks about the nature of his work, but there's no suggestion that he actually hurts anyone; at worst he's vandalizing corpses. Compare this to the monster repeatedly murdering people, including children, simply to make Victor miserable.
Again, this makes it seem like you haven't read the story. He is, indeed, afflicted by trauma from his past, specifically the trauma of seeing his creation brought to life and the work he did to make that happen. We're told at length about how, during the period where Henry Clerval is taking care of him, Victor shows him around the college in Ingolstadt where he (Victor) was working; every time the subject of the sciences came up, particularly with regard to Victor's work on it, he'd struggle with having a nervous breakdown due to being reminded of his efforts to make his creation. This is just one of several such instances where Victor experiences mid- to long-term mental breakdowns due to what happened (he spends two months without lucidity after Clerval is murdered by the monster, for instance).
No, it's not. The book repeatedly demonstrates how the monster is so fearsome to look at that no one can seem to maintain their reasoning when they see his face. Even at the end of the book, when Walton catches sight of the monster (having already been told the entire story), he describes his reaction viscerally, and how it's with difficulty that he manages to call out to the monster not to leave, as per Victor's final request (i.e. he made his saving throw).
This likewise makes me think you misread my post, since I didn't say the monster had a fear aura, just that it was described in a way that seems reminiscent of it.
Yeah, no. This is wrong. By the time the monster begins killing people, he's very clearly developed a fully-functioning understanding of himself and the world. While two years spent observing a single poor family from hiding, and a few absconded books, wouldn't be nearly enough for you or me, the text repeatedly states how the monster's faculties (physical and mental) are beyond that of ordinary men. He likewise states that he knows fully well what he's doing, and that it's with the specific purpose of injuring Victor Frankenstein (again, no "Von" there).
This, at least, is a credible argument, although still not a very good one. The text portrays the monster's emotional control as being on the same level as everyone else that it meets, in that the passions which it claims to be a slave to are no more controllable than anyone else in the story, be it Victor Frankenstein himself, Felix (whose family the monster spies upon to learn more about humans), Clerval (who is repeatedly stated to be a person with a zest for life), and virtually everyone else with a major role in the story.
The monster is tragic because his hideous countenance means he's perpetually isolated from humanity; saying that he's undone because he can't control himself actually runs counter to the understanding of the text, because it removes the monster's own agency. The monster is certainly a tragic figure, as I said before, but that makes him no less an evil one.
Yes, and we know this because the story tells us this. Victor Frankenstein admits to being moved by the monster's pleas about needing a companion, and even agrees to make one for him. It's only midway through this task that he (Victor) reconsiders, thinking back on the evil the monster has already committed, and becomes concerned that he's unleashing the progenitors of a race of daemons who will bedevil all mankind. Had the monster not killed his brother and family friend, it's hard to see Victor coming to that same conclusion.
And again, I don't see anything in the text that suggests this at all. He's arrogant, to be sure, and near the end of the story advises Walton not to succumb to ambition, but self-pitying? His life is destroyed by a monster whose actions are far, FAR out of proportion to whatever charges could be leveled against Frankenstein. The monster tells him directly that he'll destroy his (Victor's) life if he doesn't build him a mate, and that's after he kills two people. To call Victor's anguish "self-pity" is a complete misreading of the story.
No, that's completely false. He considers building another monster because the first one begs him to, and swears that the two of them (the monster and his bride) will disappear to a place with no humans, and never interact with humanity again. Ego never comes into it; there's not even a hint of a suggestion of that.
And most people are wrong, in that regard, which was the point. It's why it's important to read the original story instead of going off of the bastardized versions like you've dne here.
There's really not.
To be clear, this is a wildly inaccurate reading of the story, at least as far as the 1831 version goes. The monster comes to understand morality quite well before committing his crimes, and knows full well what he's doing is wrong and choosing to do it anyway. While certainly a pitiable character, it is indeed a shallow and less-clever understanding of the book to suggest that the monster is, as you said, a child who has no moral compass.
