Kaylin Insyarath

Montag carefully observes the rather subtle absence of the working class within Mary Shelley’s novel. He presents a statement that brings about the notion that Frankenstein’s creation is not a symbol of the proletariat but rather a symbol of unrepresentability. With a certain amount of absoluteness, I have to say I agree. Mary Shelley deliberately fails to mention the working class, providing the creature with no community in which he could possibly find a sense of belonging. In doing so, she succeeds in bringing forth a complete isolation that could very well be described as unrepresentation. Montag brings up a piece of clear evidence when he speaks about the fact that the process in which the creature is concocted is never brought to light in the novel, despite the fact that it has been made iconic by its film adaptations. The insignificance of the procedure itself serves as a sort of parallel for the fact that what is always seen by society is the result or outcome, or to be more specific to the novel’s case, the product. Just as the procedure in which the creature endured is never explained, those of the working class are rarely, if ever acknowledged, despite the fact that the products they make most certainly are.

A specific passage within the novel that closely resembles labor exploitation of the working class is one that graces us in the novel’s suspenseful beginning. It is the moment in which the idea of the creature makes its way into Victor’s imaginative mind (page 57). The second Victor realized that his idea of animating a lifeless being could serve as more than a simple passing thought, the creature suddenly becomes just a way of achieving his consumerist goals, much like those of the capitalist world rely on the members of the working class to facilitate profit.