After spending a large portion of his essay speaking on how Frankenstein’s creature is the embodiment of the proletariat, Warren Montag at the end of his ideas states that the creature actually represents the unrepresentability of the proletariat. I don’t fully agree with this change because the representation of the all of the proletariat in one powerful monster has meaning.
The monster has an incredible amount of power and strength. All his power however is channeled into avenging himself and this happens when he states, “No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me, and sent me forth to this insupportable misery” (122). The creature is a representation of the proletariat because although the proletariat had immense amount of power because of their numbers, their power was not used to change how the machine worked. They used their power to change how their cogs in the machine worked, and this reoccurs in almost every working-class revolt to date. Much like the working class, the monster, rather than changing the machine that views him the way it does, focuses instead on the immediate “issue” which he thinks would help to change his circumstances the most. His circumstances however would not change because he gained control of, or killed Victor. He would have still been seen as an ugly creature who could never amount to anything and only terrorized regular people.
With an overwhelming population like that of the proletariat, almost any law could be changed to suit their needs. This group almost always never uses that power however, because they focus on the short goal at hand, which normally is to change their current work situations. The monster in the same way, channels immense power into changing only one aspect of his life which in the long run, changes nothing.
Foundations of Literary Studies: Reading Frankenstein Two Hundred Years Later 
I can’t tell if I’m biased because I agreed with your point, but I thought the concept behind the post was original and pretty well thought out and supported. Tying back to the machine, and relating the creature to a cog simply focusing on the short term was a particularly good idea, and resonated well.
The only thing I can currently see that would improve the post was introducing your true argument earlier on with finality. As it stands now, you end your first paragraph introducing your argument, but it didn’t come out as a strong thesis; go the full mile and say you don’t agree! You have good points to back it up.
The similarity you have shown between the proletariat and the creature is well-founded and not something I had thought about before reading this. I like how you focused on one point and produced evidence to support it, while keeping the entire post concise and readable. I agree with James in that I would have liked the main argument to have been stated much earlier on because I only understood it after I had gotten though almost half the post.