It’s a book with multiple interpretations, like any halfway-good bit of art. Only absolute schlock has moral clarity.

The monster obviously isn’t the good guy, as he strangles children.

The baizou thing of “the monster was good” makes no sense. Take any other murderous incel or child-killer and apply the same. Most people who do heinous murders didn’t have easy lives prior to that; it’s not a justification.

But the monster gets to give his side of the story a lot, in long monologues. I feel some people took them monologues too literally, said, “This is the message of the book”, and I took it as the distorted ravings of monstrous psychology, with his subjective validity.

This comrade gets it

It’s almost exactly what we call an ‘incel’

Rejected by everyone, gets real mad and violent about it

It looks so much more like Frankenstein’s monster than the pop culture thing does.

Information about its appearance in the book: a bigger-than-average human sewn together from large bits of corpses.

That looks like it.

Among men ages 18-29, 44% had watched porn within the past month. Among men ages 30-49, it was 57%.

Side-track but isn’t it interesting that it’s higher in the 30+

An explanation jumps to my mind.