So, I finally completed my essay. It took me extremely long due to the fact that I plainly didnt know what to write despite I have read the book. My exam is next Wednesday and there will be a question about this book. Who knows, this may even be the question ( Why do you think Mary Shelley chose to share the narration of her novel Frankenstein amonq three different narrators: Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the monster himself?). Therefore, it would be notably important if someone could correct all the mistakes, awkward expressions, or even give me some straight hints on how to make it better.

The essay:

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a peculiar book. There are numerous differences compared to other books. Naturally, there is an omniscient narrator, however, the story is divided among three different narrators: Robert Walton, a lonely adventurer who is seeking for North Pole, Victor Frankenstein, the unfortunate man whose unquenchable thirst for knowledge and delusions of grandeur were the reasons for his losses, and the abominable monster who is flabbergasted with the behavior of human beings.
There are several reasons why Mary Shelley decided to share the narration between three narrators. First and foremost, the expression that this distribution gives to the reader is extremely vigorous because it forces the reader to be attentive. As a result, the reader gets absorbed in the text. Secondly, every narrator is able to tell the story from one’s own viewpoint. Not only gives this means a profound approach to the text, but also it keeps the story fresh.
This distribution of narrators also brought about an effect that I experienced extremely potently. In spite of the fact that the hideous monster did all the austere things, I felt sorry for him while reading his dreadful story. Therefore, it was very clever of Shelley to let the monster to tell his own story. Thus Shelley inveigled me into feeling sorry for him.
All in all, it was an exceedingly powerful approach of Shelley to tell the story this way. It raises the story telling into a different level providing that the reader is apt to change his or hers attitude against the characters in the novel.
Noone??Emotion: crying
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a peculiar (not sure I would want to start an essay with a description like that! It sounds like a criticism). book. There are numerous differences compared to other books (but you don't tell us what all those differences are? Also, saying 'other books' makes it sounds as if it is different to ALL other books, perhaps you should say 'many' or 'most'. But, actually, using a multiple point of view is not that unusual).There is an omniscient narrator, however, the story is divided among three different narrators: (re-hrase the last bit - is it one omniscient narrator or three omniscient narrators? Can 3 all be omniscient?) Robert Walton, a lonely adventurer who is seeking for the North Pole, Victor Frankenstein, the unfortunate man whose unquenchable thirst for knowledge and delusions of grandeur were the reasons for his losses, and the abominable monster who is flabbergasted by the behavior of human beings.
There are several reasons why Mary Shelley decided to share the narration between three narrators. First and foremost, (the expression that this distribution) re-phrase part in brakets gives to the reader is extremely vigorous (word choice?) because it forces the reader to be attentive (I see what you mean but I would re-phrase that last sentence.). As a result, the reader gets absorbed in the text. Secondly, every narrator is able to tell the story from their own viewpoint. Not only does this mean a profound approach to the text, but also it keeps the story fresh.
This distribution (wrong word choice) of narrators also brought about an effect that I experienced extremely potently. In spite of the fact that the hideous monster did all the austere (wrong word choice) things, I felt sorry for him while reading his dreadful story. Therefore, it was very clever of Shelley to let the monster tell his own story. Thus Shelley inveigled me into feeling sorry for him.
All in all, it was an exceedingly powerful approach for Shelley to tell the story in this way. It raises the story telling to a different level providing that the reader is able to change his or hers attitude about the characters in the novel.