critical response 4 (M.R)

So I finally got around to finishing the book. I think it was good, but I was decently fond of it. the reason being is that, I usually love descriptive books, but this was extremely long when it came to description. Thus I was happy the way the writer, Mary Shelly, wrote the book, but after a while for me, its just annoying and at times I want it to climax the moment or the event it was being descriptive about. The ending was very tragic, for it invoked an existential moment, where the character of the creature knows since the beginning of the book that it didn’t choose to exist, but through someone else’s choice it was created. And throughout the book we see that it tries to understand that which is not understandable, its very humanity and the reality he perceives. As George Berkeley would put it, “to be is to be perceived”, and that’s exactly what the creature wanted from its creator, the Delacey family, etc. But, it could never truly attain it until it committed atrocities. And from the ashes of the atrocities committed by the monster arose insanity, obsession with revenge from Frankenstein himself. Thus the creature found a reason to exist by taunting its own creator. Until his creator died, he finally was able to make existence his own just like his creator tried to do before him. And the way he was able to make existence his own was by destroying himself. Finally being able to choose for his own existence, he destroys himself so that there is no proof that these events had transpired. This also relates with the ideology of Albert Camus, which is why don’t we commit suicide? why should we even live? and its by finding a purpose or being  captivated by the phenomenon of existence/life. This correlates with the creature because as soon as its creator dies, it therefore has no purpose and thus it wants to commit suicide. In conclusion, I would recommend this book, but you must have a lot of spare time in order to read it and analyze to its many fullest extents.