Bring on the tough stuff - there’s not just one right answer.
The big question here: How do you feel about Griffin? Is he a criminal mad scientist who should be killed? Or is he a guy who is trying to work things out, but other people and society keep getting in his way?
Is the ending of this book happy and just? Are you glad when Griffin is killed and Marvel gets to keep all the stolen money? Are you glad that the invisibility formula is hidden from Kemp, who could recreate it? If you don't think this is all rainbows, what would a happy ending to this story look like?
How do you feel about the chapters where Griffin tells his own story to Kemp? Do they make you sympathize with Griffin? Or does he seem like more of a monster when he casually talks about attacking people and stealing from his father? Would it change how you understood the Invisible Man if we heard his story from another source?
In The Invisible Man, it seems like Griffin starts out as a dangerous person even before he uses his invisibility formula. But in the famous 1933 movie version (and in many others), he only goes insane because of the formula. Why do you think the movie made this change? Does it change your opinion of Griffin?
Why did Kemp turn out differently than Griffin? After all, they're both scientists. Is Kemp less isolated than Griffin? Is it simply because Kemp has more money?
What does this story make you think about science? Is it as dangerous as Wells makes it seem
What did you think of Griffin's long explanation of how he made himself invisible? Would it change how you read this book if Griffin were made invisible by magic?
How do the shifts in point of view affect your understanding of the story?
How would you react to an invisible man or woman? Do you think the townsfolk in Iping react realistically?
How does the Invisible Man compare to other invisible figures in literature? Is invisibility more often used for good or for evil in these stories?