Tag Archive: creature

The New Perspective

Warren Montag, author of the essay “The Workshop of Filthy Creatures”, uses this article of writing to pinpoint the social classes, and social injustices, found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. To start off, Montag first divides the fact that Victor is part of the Bourgeoisie class, and the creation represents the Proletariat class. While reading Montag’s paper, he brings up multiple points based around his thesis. His final words, however, can be left for interpretation by his readers; “… not so much the sign of the Proletariat as of its unrepresentability.” (480)

In my personal opinion, I believe that Montag is correct. In order to help Montag with direct evidence from the novel, might I direct you to chapter 12 of Frankenstein. At this point in the journey, the creature has been studying the cottagers and their ways of survival. The cottagers work everyday, especially Felix, and the creature takes note of this continuously in his part of the story. However, the creature then states to himself, “… but how terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool!” While the quote is fleeting, it still holds many points of evidence that are useful for my argument. One, for example, being the plain fact that the creature understands that he is not like the cottagers as far as beauty. This is not the first time that we, the readers, see the creature separate himself from human society, or even the Proletariat class. Just this quote is enough to sustain the theory that the creature merely is not a suitable husk of the Proletariat class in Shelley’s novel, no matter how hard Shelley tries. The creature cannot identify himself with the Proletariat because he does not understand their pains and labors, despite him lending a secretive helping hand.

-Jody Omlin


By: Jocelyn Lemus

the creation

Each person that reads Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, tends to develop new key ideas and perspectives towards what there is to believe and what is there to know. As reading Warren Montag’s essay, “The Workshop of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein, Montag gets into conclusion with the idea that the creature is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability”(480). This idea made me realize how important it is to shape this concept as reading the novel. In my personal ideas, I disagree with Montag’s way of thinking because througout the book there was definitely a correlation between the creature and Victor with the concept of a proletariat.

As reading the novel, Mary Shelley gives Victor the power to label his creature as his slave. In the book, Victor labels the creature as, “Slave… Remember that I have power”(146). This demonstrates how the creature is depicted as someone that comes from a lower class. As we already know, the word ‘proletariat’ does identify someone as working class people. In which this case, Victor and the creature seem to fit in, in the image of that because they both don’t quite seem to know who controls who. They both are lost with the idea that one has power over the other. However, in this situation they both seem to consciously know what and who the power is being created by.

By Jade Graham

Image result for marxism

There are many lenses and perspectives that readers have discovered through Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and with that comes many viewpoints and beliefs. Warren Montag (appears to be around the 1990’s) wrote an essay from a Marxist viewpoint. Titled, “The ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein” Montag uses quotes and sources to try and prove his idea of how the monster is put in the difficult position of not the proletariat, but not being represented at all. There is the point made of within a divided class society there is labor to be done. With that comes workers in a factory, where parts are assembled. That idea of the Victor creating something does make the creature a part of the classes, but a part of the creation itself. The creature is different body parts made into a walking dead being. Parts together to help improve somehow, like creations with parts at a factory to create a full piece. The monster did not improve anyone’s life, he did not come with directions and was taken for granted.

I agree with Montag’s point after reading. I did not view him to be on the other side because I believed he had experienced both sides at one point. From a baby-like learning state who doesn’t know much, poor, and low skills to intelligent, quick, and ethical the creature is hard to pin down. Because of how different the creature is, he is not a part of society and therefore not a part of any class.

This is shown when the monster encounters the cottagers, he is an outsider. Not of their world or anything like it. He is a supernatural creation, the living dead. He is able to feel though when reflecting on the cottager’s lifestyle and their nature towards each other. That want to belong as he, “felt a sensation of a peculiar and overpowering nature: they were a mixture of pain and pleasure,” when coming with emotions that are not only shocking but rare to experience for him (100). There is ambiguity present due to how everyone can feel emotions, but for the creature to experience them is on another level. He is confused and decides to put those emotions at bay because he does not know how to handle them. The meaning of feeling emotions, what that means for the creature, and more. Acts of kindness, those of which the creature has not been given and is seeing for the first time. So to call the creature classless may be an incorrect term, but he is not upper, middle, or even lower class. He is an outsider because of his background. Created in a lab like a factory and not given any help led the creature to fend for himself and learn emotions. That is what happens when you don’t take care of your creations.



At the end of his essay, “The ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein”, Warren Montag concludes that in Marry Shelley’s novel the creature is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability” (480). After reading Shelley’s novel and Montag’s essay I have come to disagree with Montag and believe that the creature, in fact, helps show the representation of the proletariats in Shelley’s novel. In Shelley’s novel, the creature gives a grave description of Felix, Agatha and the old man’s living condition in which he discovers that “the cause of the uneasiness of this amiable family: it was poverty; and they suffered that evil in a very distressing degree” (101). This family is a direct representation as told by the creature of the oppressed working class; they live in a little cottage with their blind father and must fend for themselves every day.

The two children, “often suffer the pangs of hunger very poignantly; for several times they placed food before the old man, when they reserved none for themselves,” due to being lower class status, with a blind father the two young cottagers needed to take care of one another and in having so much to do during the day they would not often have enough food for all to eat so let the old man eat because he couldn’t see if they were eating as well (102).

The creature being created by the working class man, Victor Frankenstein, sympathizes with the lower class family because they are isolated to the little cottage and must fend for themselves like he has had to because he has been doing the same thing since he was created. “For the monster is a product rather than a creation, assembled and joined together not so much by a man as by science, technology, and industry, whose overarching logic subsumes and subjects even the greatest geniuses” (Montag 473). Even Victor himself is a brief representation of the proletariats because he was the creator of the creature but once the creature was finished it wasn’t what he wanted it to be and he didn’t care to see the creature.

The creature who was hiding in their cottage took notice of how “their nourishment consisted entirely of vegetables of their garden, and the milk of one cow, which gave very little during the winter, when its masters could scarcely produce food to support it” and how “the youth spent a great part of each day in collecting wood for the family fire” (101-102). Seeing the family struggle just to stay warm at night, the creature, “took his tools and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days” (102). With the use of the word “home”, the creature is considering himself as part of their family which therefore makes him a representation of the proletariat rather than a non-representation of the proletariat.

-Alina Cantero

I disagree with Montag’s conclusion that the creature stands for the under representation of proletarians. The last paragraph on page 101, continuing on page 102, describes the cottagers, and their living conditions, in a way that makes them similar proletarians.

In this passage the creature revealed the cottagers situation when it came to their nutrition. According to the creature, they suffered poverty in a “distressing degree” (101), which lead to not having reliable resources. In addition, the creature told that all their food was obtained by themselves. They got milk from a single cow they owned as well as vegetables from their own garden. The cottagers struggle for survival can be compared to the proletariat’s struggle to survive on insufficient wages disproportionate to their labor.

Similar to proletarians, the cottagers can be placed at the bottom of the social ladder, even without having to sell their labor. In my opinion the cottagers represent the proletariat far better than the creature. The creature has no financial problems nor does he benefit from his own labor. If anything, the creature could be viewed as the capitalist, waiting to take advantage of and live off the cottagers’ little resources as well as their home.

By: Galilea Sanchez

Frankenstein: The Novel vs. the Myth

As children, we all thought that we had known who Frankenstein was; the bumbling green monster who could barely string a handful of words together, with its dramatized square-shaped head and metal bolts jutting out from its large neck. We didn’t even consider him as a real living creature, only an object. Not only was it a symbol of fear during Halloween, but has now (more popularly) become a comedic character in children’s shows and movies. One example is from the new popular animated movie, Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation.

After reviewing and reading through Frankenstein, however, we see a whole different world. We’re exposed to a completely different character, one that we aren’t sure how to react to. For one, our so-called monster is actually nameless, put into this world with no identity. Frankenstein, first name being Victor, is actually the creator of the creature we had been stereotyping this entire time. The creature in Shelley’s novel is nothing how we were forced to perceive him to be.

The creature is born into a world where he is instantly hated by his creator, by his presumable “mother”, if we must give Victor the role of this creation’s parent. Victor’s cruelness automatically evicts pity from us to the creature, since we can envision this creation as something completely helpless and in need of direction, which he had been so horribly shoved away from. At this point in time, we begin to humanize him.

We also see that the creature has very human qualities, such as complex emotions and strong intelligence that is unexpected from a science experiment thought to have gone wrong. In the novel, we are the witnesses to the creature’s mental growth as he is quickly shunned by Victor and must discover humanity himself. In fact, to call this creation a monster is completely incorrect, seeing that the reason we fear this creation is because of how human he becomes.

This creature, the one we have humanized, is no monster; the only true beast we witness in this novel is Victor Frankenstein, himself.

-Jody Omlin

Upon a night such as this, years ago in the past, if I were tasked to conjure up an image for the fictional being known as “Frankenstein”, the image would be that as based on Boris Karloff in his performance in the 1931 film: a creature of flesh and technology, blood and electricity flowing within the frame of  intense stature. I would have imagined the creature walking as stiff as death, joints locked in Rigor Mortis with arm reaching out in full length and legs thumping and shaking the Earth with each forced step. The Creature would force its way into the lives of its victims to fulfill some deep hatred towards his creator and those of his species. My old imaginings of the were those of the monster that had been shown to me my whole life, one that painted that foul beast in a light from the deepest burnings of hellfire.

Upon reading the text of which my original understanding of the idea was founded on, however, I was surprised to learn the true nature of how the Monster was supposed to appear: a divine creature that was created to look as beautiful as man was supposed to be made as when the Lord had bestowed his image unto the Earth; a large frame that would be made ugly after being bestowed life. The creature was one that desired to be loved and accepted, but scorned by the one that had constructed him. I wish there was a more happy fate for which that fallen creature could have endured, but to see that he was disowned by his creator due to his hideousness and imperfect disposition, I see now that the version of which I have consumed all my life is a version that strips the creature of the Human qualities and immortalizes him as only a monster that thirsts for a vengeance that can never be sated.

Through revelation, I see that the creature presented within the novel is one of perplexing constitution and character of which paints the creature in a light of humanity that cannot be exhibited in any other way than that which was before the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Yet, through exile by creator and kin, he becomes a monster not by choice but by circumstance and becomes the villain he is made out to be. The tragedy of the Created Man is one that we are not shown because it would generate thoughts that would make us questions ourselves, so it is through the monstrous version of the beast that we shown in which we become infantilized to the truth of depth of human nature.

I for sure am glad for the reveal of the true character of Frankenstein’s creature so that I have a greater understanding on the nature of man.

-Alejandro Joseph Serrano

Karla Garcia Barrera 

Upon reading Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein I was very surprised at the “original” perception from the novel. Usually, or to say most television shows, dramas, media, etc. express Frankenstein as deformed, grotesque, and evil monster. Descriptions that are totally different from the book. Moreover, the myths lose the sympathetic feelings that the novel conveys. We the readers, come to detect the creature (of Frankenstein) as a thinking and feeling being. A misunderstood being that is highly intellectual. So, contrary to myths, Frankenstein is intelligent, conscious, and expressive “creature”. In addition, the novel does give the reader the physical characteristics of the creature, but mostly focuses on the inner part of the creature. Popular myths tend to focus on the physical characteristics rather than the inner-self of the creature.

I believe that the true monster to the story is mankind. In the novel, the creature comes to love the cottage family (Safine, the blind old man, Felix, and his sister). Deeply the creature wants a connection with mankind. However, we read that he is ultimately rejected by the sight of mankind.  Thus, he is deeply bitter and injured emotionally by them. A reanimation of the creature in Frankenstein expressing the novel’s interpretation can gradually shift the perceptions of whom the creature really is, not just the physical expressions.

Jocelyn Lemus

Image result for frankenstein images

As humans, some of us can’t help to judge a book’s cover even before reading it. Human nature has brought us down in a world where our individual abilities challenge us from what we are capable of assuming to what it’s really there.

The world then and the world up to today implemented stereotypes that are tainted into one’s appearance.  Multiple stereotypes bring in the misconception that people fall for. Some human abilities can’t even turn the other cheek even when it comes to reading someone’s physical expressions other than the inner instincts.

  This topic has a major connection to the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. In this novel, Frankenstein creates this creature that was never given a voice to the world in order to share his personal perspectives.  Frankenstein automatically labels his creation as a ”monster.”‘ That so-called ”monster” wanders the silent and lonesome nights in between the trees. Personally, I’ve never acknowledge the existence of this novel, and after reading it I discovered how naive I was about it. I’ve discovered that I’ve actually never considered listening to what the ”villain” has to say and now that I had the chance to read what Frankenstein’s creation had in mind, it completely shaped my mind. I was transformed from never noticing the other side to understanding every corner. 

I chose the top image because as one sees this image a quick shiver in between their spines might rise carrying fear. The image itself looks frightening and disturbing with vicious eyes that devour the human flesh with a glance. This is important to notice because when one thinks of the novel Frankenstein, they automatically think of a malicious and wicked character. However, the idea of the novel and the way others may see or describe it, is completely different from what the author, Mary Shelley wants to bring out according to the novel. One must look deep inside the box up to the point where they get lost in order to understand the true meanings of a novel. In some way, this novel made me realize that maybe the monsters are the ones we create inside ourselves, and some can burst while others manage to silence it. 

Image result for frankenstein slow

By Galilea Sanchez

As I read Frankenstein, I often stop, and it always surprises me that the creature (who’s name isn’t Frankenstein) talks! It really does. Before coming across this book I was certain that every appearance by the creature would involve only deep grunts and groans. I believed that since he was a creature of the dead he would be reborn with no knowledge and would therefore be unable to learn again. Yet I was wrong.

The picture displayed best describes my stereotypical image of Frankenstein. A silent creature, who lurks and makes noise only when he wants to make his presence known. Although I thought him unable to speak, I am certain that he would therefore be a great listener. Unable to communicate his thoughts but understanding those of others, even when he wasn’t supposed to. A shadow holding secrets that slip from others.

I was proven wrong when he shares how he managed to learn to speak properly AND read. He expressed himself so clearly to his creator that it was easy to forget that he was a creature no one could stand to see.

I had a thought a few days ago, that somehow if the creature was real and he managed to tell his story today he would have become a life coach. Today people are very accepting, in my opinion, of those who are different and with his struggles and way of speaking he might have put other coaches to shame.