In his essay “The Workshop of Filthy Creation: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein,” Montag brings forward many issues that people are able to interpret and express differently. Personally, I believe the biggest example of Montag’s ideas presented in this essay is his comparison between the working and middle classes as he states,”it bears witness to the birth of that monster, simultaneously the object of pity and fear, the industrial working class” (380). With this Marxist perspective, the monster has a similarity to the industrial class. This is significant because we see that both the monster and the people of the working class both constantly struggle with their lives. When the monster is born/made, it struggles to gain any form of relationships or companions solely due to its hideous physical appearance. The only option left for the monster is to be born into that hideous appearance and deal with the constant hurt, backlash, and burden that weighs on its shoulders. Comparably, during the Industrial and French Revolutions, those born into the working class also had to struggle with their economic status and life as they were always struggling to find work and make ends meet. This idea is important and significant because it is illustrating something that people went through and still do at times. This essay highlights the the social and economic restraints of both the monster and history. According to Montag, the monster is the proletariat as he states,“the monster is the proletariat. History disguised as the novel remains only to be unmasked by the reader.” (389). From that quote, we see that according to Montag, the monster is the proletariat. To add on, I think Montag is letting readers know that the text has many resemblances to history and the issues of production but it is solely up to the reader to find those resemblances and hints. There is barely any insight or reference to the way the monster was made. There is some, but it is barely stated which illustrates the alienation of labor that those of the working class face. I also feel as if he believes Victor represents those of the middle class. In a sense, I would like to agree with Montag about Victor being a member of the middle class. His character is rather selfish. A perfect example of that is the death of his wife, Elizabeth. Victor sends his wife away because suddenly his masculine games come into play again and decides, my wedding night is a perfect night to murder/fight this monster? Throughout the novel, we see that Elizabeth is in a sense owned by Victor. He was selfish in leaving her alone on their wedding night, especially if someone was after him, this highlights his self centered nature. However, I feel as though Victor could also represent the working class too because he created the monster in his workshop yet there was barely any information. It went from the description of his work room and quickly after it was the scene of the finished product. Where was the part in which he was making the creature? It was nonexistent.  on that. I agree and disagree with the author of this novel because I feel as if though the monster went through worse than the working class. I agree with the struggles and burdens, but the monster was less. He was made up of parts other people, he lacked normal everyday bodily functions and features. It is not fair to compare the creature to everyday people who yes, struggle, but their entire existence and life does not. I also feel like Victor could be both a member of middle and working classes. This was rather confusing so I would like to both agree and disagree with this text.

-Rahma Kohin