Arlyne Gonzalez

cottagers

Construing Warren’s Montag’s essay, “The Workshop of Filthy Creation” A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein, I encountered many interconnections between the working class and Frankenstein. Montag highlights how the working class had entered… forms that could appear monstrous… (Montag, 472). Montag is highlighting how the working class represents the monstrosity within society and cannot be perceived as respected individuals. However, I disagree with that perspective, because the working class is simply folks laboring away, and obeying what they are being commanded of them. If anything, Victor Frankenstein was the one who had a monstrous conscience. He had the audacity to engineer a creature and challenge nature, coming up with the excuse of experimenting with a “God-like science”. Victor was not driven by good intentions nor bad intentions, he just lacked the intellect and common sense of the possible results that would come from creating another creature. What was missing from this passage, was Montag recognizing the true monstrosity in Mary Shelly’s novel, which was Victor, not the creature. Victor was the one who let himself be driven by gothic and dark notions, henceforth, creating the creature and immediately abandoning it due to selfish reasons. The creature, just like any born infant, was innocent and in confusion about his existence and purpose in life.

Moving forward, As I was interacting with the text, I immediately connected the creature with the working class, because they both encompassed great struggles regarding sociality. For instance, the working class is obviously putting forth all their time and effort to earn and wages and establish a decent living, however, the creature has different aspirations. The creature was putting forth time and efforts in attempting to be accepted by society and be considered as an equal. Which was why the creature studied language and fell in love with it, that he considered language to be an art. Montag considers the creature to be an actual monster because he does not see realize the genesis of how and why the creature did all those bad deeds toward Victor’s loved ones. The creature wanted to be understood and loved by a creature similar to him. The Tension that can be perceived from this, can be Montag stating that “the monster is a product rather than a creation, assembled and joined together by… science, technology, and industry… (Montag, 473). Montag is emphasizing how the creature cannot be loved or understood because according to Montag, the creature is nothing but a product of science. This demonstrates a paradox because Montag is being directly honest, eliminating any sympathy toward the creature’s nature. Yes, the creature was conducted by science and technology, but what is missing from Montag’s view, is that the creature may encompass monstrous physical features, but like many humans, he also encompassed a heart of bottled up emotions.

In closing, I disagree with Montag’s view of the creature being depicted as the underrepresentation of the proletariat because the creature may have encompassed many flaws like many, but the cottagers; the family that the creature was observing and learning from, were the ones that can be depicted as the underrepresentation of the proletariat. The cottagers were the ones who were stripped of their wealth and were banished from their hometown. They were compelled to isolate themselves from the village and make a home inside the woods. They did not have a great deal of many, let alone have many resources to acquire food and basic necessities. The cottagers were sentenced to live in poverty due to the capital ceasing their wealth and left with no alternative other than to endure a hardship.