From what I gather from Warren Montag’s essay, the proletariat are the unwanted by-product of an industrial revolution lead by the middle-class entrepreneurial bourgeois. Considering the historical context of the novel, Victor Frankenstein and his creation can very well be considered representatives of the elite and the working classes. However, in the Creature’s case, it happens to be the sole embodiment of the proletariat, as it exclaims “I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property…[and] When I looked around, I saw and heard of none like me.” (page 109). From a Marxist point of view, this total overlap of representation lends another dimension to the connection between the Creature and the proletariat. Now every single one of the Creature’s attributes becomes applicable to the working class of that age, and vice versa. And it is this exclusive relationship that allows Montag to label the Creature as “not so much the sign of the proletariat”  (page 395) but as something more.

That “something more”, according to Warren Montag, is the Creature being the sign of the proletariat’s “unrepresentability”. This attribute, I think can be derived from two sources: the obscurities in the novel, and the Creature’s absolute solitude. As Montag himself points out, the reader is never privy to the science involved in the Creature’s birth. The narrative simply skips forward. Similarly the novel is very descriptive when speaking of nature, but never once does it make any mention of the manifestations of the industrial revolution. Montag very aptly observes that “technology and science […] are present only in their effects.” (page 392). This glaring set of omissions means that the Creature’s world  is always incomplete and its very existence seems “incongruous” (page 394). So the reader is always left wanting when the narrative focuses on the Creature. Thus, the Creature’s embodiment of the proletariat notwithstanding, its connection to the world and the scheme of things becomes tenuous and almost unrepresentable.

Furthermore, like the proletariat, the Creature is unprecedented in its existence. It is unique, and therefore alone. Like the proletariat who were the bane of the bourgeois and also the instruments of their will, the Creature “far from being simply the object of horror,[…] also elicits pity.” (page 388). This contradictory nature, this uncertainty in the dominant attribute of the two is what makes them so hard to portray and therefore supports Montag’s conclusion: the Creature more aptly represents about the working class that which cannot be represented.