Tag Archive: frankenstein


The bourgeois character of Frankenstein’s monster is identifiable in his being subjected as a refuge of industrial, working class. The entirety of Warren Montag’s essay emphasizes the environmental issues with which Mary Shelley is analyzing in her embodiment of the melodramatic hero known as the beast-like, Frankenstein’s monster. Science itself becomes subject to the enlightenment-era novel which Shelley attributes and personifies via the pathos of an anti-hero in her portrayal of an oppressed, lower class. Montag rightly disagrees with Gothic tradition. “The very logic of capitalism has produced the means of its own destruction: the industrial working class,” (473). Destruction and chaos throughout the novel subject the monster’s rationalizations and rebelling against bourgeoisie (Walton). Walton, and not Frankenstein himself, achieves symbolism of the upper-elite, as it is Walton, and other secondary characters- for example Clerval, whom assumes narratorial authority over Frankenstein’s fable. Walton ultimately appropriates forms of both Frankenstein and his monster’s mourning if we accept the premise of public instances of mourning, a stressor on the human body, as a form of contesting labor conditions. The problem of a Marxist Literary criticism in Frankenstein further develops in the understanding of alienated (groups of) individuals.

According to Montag, the bourgeoisie are unable to identify with an irrational class. Montag continues to quote Goldner, claiming that “the monster is a factitious totality assembled from (the parts of) a multitude of different individuals (Goldner),” (473). Montag’s Marxist criticism suggests an ironic return to images of a fragmented (human) nature, and rather than ascribe to living individuals the responsibility that comes with recognizing interiority- the monster’s cries for justice- are ignored until a member of the excluded bourgeoisie is allowed expressivity. “I did not satisfy my own desires,” (Shelley 197) is an echo of a monster damned from conception to exist in an environment that would destroy it. Gothic tradition contests the expressions of public protest which appeal to faculties of reason for the sake of legitimacy. Frankenstein’s monster roams through ice caps in the North Pole, the mountains of Geneva, and across oceans seeking refuge from the industrial class. The only watchers of the story, Walton and Frankenstein, are thus incorporated into the production of Frankenstein’s monster for cultivating the critique which primarily identifies with the desires of the bourgeoisie, which Montag observes in the overlooking of proletariat struggle. Montag perhaps relies on logic too much- not even Frankenstein’s monster was so deluded by Cartesian means of worldly being.
-Bradley Dexter Christian

Advertisements

by Steven Gonzalez

In “The Workshop of Filthy Creation: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein by Warren Montag, Montag draws parallels from the French and English Revolution to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  One of the most compelling comparisons I found in Montag’s essay is the comparison of the “new elites” having to mobilize the “plebian” masses in the attempt to overthrow absolutist monarchies and Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the creature in the novel. Eventually, Montag comes to the conclusion that “Frankenstein’s creation, is therefore not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability.” Ultimately, I agree with Montag’s Marxist reading of the novel as throughout the novel that there are undeniable similarities between Frankenstein’s monster and the proletariat.

Frankenstein’s monsters’ similarity to the proletariat and their “unrepresentability” is best depicted in the passage on page 109 beginning with ” I learned that…” and ending with “… all men fled and whom all men disowned?” Initially, the monster describes the possessions that humans find “most esteemed” and in the following sentence discusses how without either of the two possessions he describes (high unsullied descent and riches) men are seen as a “vagabond or slave, doomed to waste his powers for the profits of the chosen few!”(Shelley 109). This statement clearly carries an allusion to the proletariat through the lack of socio-economic status and the arduous and forever-lasting journey to obtain it; The exclamation point following the last statement as well as the choice of words of like vagabond and slave carry some sort of resentful tone further showing the monster’s self-identification with the proletariat. In the following sentence, the monster depicts himself as being innocent and ignorant creating a sort of  sympathetic mood much like one would expect the proletariat would do stating, “Of my creation and creator I was absolutely ignorant, I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property.”(Shelley 109). Then, the monster uses loaded words associated self-hatred and pity mirroring the mindset of people with nothing to lose like the proletariat often experience; the phrases the monster used to describe himself being ” hideously deformed”, “loathsome”, and ” I was not even the same nature of man.”Next, is perhaps the most significant line relating to Warren Montag’s argument of the creature representing the proletariat’s unrepresentability in the novel; After describing himself as this poor, ignorant, disfigured creature and being less than man, he notices, “When I looked around I saw and heard of none like me.”(Shelley 109). Why would Shelley intentionally exclude peasants and people who would be classified as proletariats from the novel? Is it perhaps to exemplify the incongruence of proletariats in a society ruled by the new elites? Warren Montag seems to think so, So I ask, why would Mary Shelley have the creature acknowledge that omission of the proletariat class in this paragraph? Finally, the paragraph ends with the creature’s use of a rhetorical question to emphasize his low self-worth, questioning, ” Was I, then, a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all men disowned?”(Shelley 109). This question is peculiar because it not only feels like it is a questioning of the creature’s self-worth but it almost seems as if this portrays the struggle between the upper and lower classes by mirroring  the upper class’ perspective of the proletariats thinking of them as simply “a blot upon the earth.”

Continue reading

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

The proletariat was originally meant to rise up and create a new world order that took the power away from the bourgeoisie. This theory never proved true however because the proletarians would buy into the same traps of capitalism that the burgeoisie did. In this way the proletariat did not quite represent itself the way it was meant to. Montag’s conclusion that Frankenstein’s Creature is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability” (480) is a conclusion that I agree with.

The reason I agree with this conclusion is because throughout the novel there is a constant sense that the Creature is not meant to be viewed as an equal. It is monstrous, unnatural, and wrong for the entirety of its existence in the eyes of its creator. A creator who cannot handle what he has created and who prefers to live oblivious to his “monster.” Within the text there is one example that stood out to me of this inability to exist together equally. On page 93 there is an exchange between Victor and the Creature that exemplifies exactly what I mean:

“Begone! I will not hear you. There can be no community between you and me; we are enemies. Begone, or let us try our strength in a fight, in which one must fall.”

“How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favorable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion? Believe me, Frankenstein: I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow-creatures, who owe me nothing? they spurn and hate me. The desert mountains and dreary glaciers are my refuge. I have wandered here many days; the caves of ice, which I only do not fear, are a dwelling to me, and the only one which man does not grudge. These bleak skies I hail, for they are kinder to me than your fellow-beings. If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share my wretchedness. Yet it is in your power to recompense me, and deliver them from an evil which it only remains for you to make so great, that not only you and your family, but thousands of others, shall be swallowed up in the whirlwinds of its rage. Let your compassion be moved, and do not disdain me. Listen to my tale: when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me, as you shall judge that I deserve. But hear me. The guilty are allowed, by human laws, bloody as they are, to speak in their own defense before they are condemned. Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder; and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man! Yet I ask you not to spare me: listen to me; and then, if you can, and it you will, destroy the work of your hands.”

There is a lot to unpack from this quote but let us focus on some of the things the Creature tells Victor about being a creation. Much like the proletariat is a creation that got out of hand for the new emerging elite so did the Creature get too out of hand for Victor. The Creature is aware of this and goes further to say that Victor is the one who can do something about him being so out of hand, that “it is in your power to recompense me, and deliver them from an evil which it only remains for you to make so great” because as the creator of the monster Victor is the one with the ultimate power to stop him. Much in the same way that the newly emerging elite should have been able to stop their creation: the working class. Yet both creators were unable to take control back from what they had created.

Here the tension is obvious between Victor and the Creature, it is quite clear that they are “enemies” and yet the Creature is imploring to be heard before he is judged even further. It again comes back to the disconnect between the working class and the new elite of the time. The desire to be represented and heard being ignored and pushed aside must certainly caused those oppressed people to rise up to be at least acknowledged. The Creature is quite a good symbol of this aspect of the working class. Throughout this passage the motif of justice is recurring and in conjunction with words like “goodness,” “benevolent,” and “compassion” almost makes it seem like there is a possibility for a positive outcome. However, Victor never interjects with any semblance of possibly changing his mind when the Creature speaks. Which suggests that Victor will not acknowledge his creation and will not forgive or pass fair judgement on his creation. There is no real justice in this despite there being an attempt of it within the passage.

The last thing I will focus on is the narrative voice and the style of the passage. This is a dialogue between Victor and the Creature told from Victor’s perspective. Victor’s feelings no doubt affect how the Creature comes across to the reader. The bitterness on Victor’s part and the almost pitiful pleading on the Creature’s part are conveyed in the style of the passage and in the words themselves. As this is a retelling of the conversation from Victor, it could be entirely possible that the Creature was not as pitiful as Victor likes to see him as. Perhaps the Creature was more angry and intent on getting what he wanted from this moment but Victor retells it so it does not seem that way.

Ultimately the Creature is symbolic of the “unrepresentability” of the proletariat because he is a prime example of a creation that went wrong and could never be viewed as more than a huge mistake. A mistake that should be forgotten and not put at the forefront for being so monstrous and unlikable in the eyes of its creator.

 

By Diana Lara

 

Bianca Lopez Munoz

As we were introduced to Victor at the beginning of Frankenstein, we learn that he is Genevese and that his family is, “one of the most distinguished in that republic” and that his ancestors, “had been for many years counsellors and syndics” (39). Not only that but Victor also states that, “No human being could have passed a happier childhod than myself” (44). In other words, Victor grew up in a very well off home, was raised by kind parents, and members of his family have a history of being government officials. This character lived a pretty comfortable, undemanding, and privilaged life up until he created the creature. Victor’s background allows us to interpret his character as the representation of the bourgoisie, the well off middle class in society. In Montag’s essay, he reminds us that it was this bourgoisie middle class that “conjured up a monster that once unleased, could not be controlled” (471), the monster being the French and English Revolutions led by the bourgoisie but comprised mostly of the proletariat class. Similarly, Victor conjured up an uncontrollable ‘monster’ as well. But I don’t believe this interpretation stays consistent throughout the novel. Victor starts out as a sort of representation of the bourgoisie but after the his creation and towards the end of the novel he seems to become more part of the proletariat, the working class. As the burgoisie did, Victor becomes fearful of the monster he created. When the creature demands that Victor create a partner for him, Victor obliges out of fear. The creature’s demands are similar to that of the proletariat class, in that during the revolution, the people sought justice and fairness that according to Montag their “innumerable demands went far beyond what was rational or even ‘just’ (according to the norms of middle -class revolutionaries)” (471). In Victor’s eyes, creating yet another monster that could possible add on to his torment was not rational or just to him, but to the creature, having experienced such isolation, saw these requests as ‘just’. The creature also overthrows his ‘master’. After Victor destroys the second creation, the creature calls Victor a slave and tells him, “you are my creator, but I am your master;––obey!”(146). The creature becomes like the anarchists of the revolutions! 

For the most part, I agree with Warren Montag’s concluding statements in his essay, “The Workshop of Filthy Creation: A marxist Reading of Frankenstein”. Montag concludes that the creature is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability. Though in my eyes, the creature does represent the proletariat, not in that it is a ‘working class’ but that it’s an unatural mass created by some higher authority, made up of different individuals (literally) and that it itches for change and the overall betterment of its life. The creature tells Victor, “Yet I ask you not to spare me: listen to me, and then, if you can, and if you will, destroy the work of your hands” (94). This is the creature’s attempt to have his creator listen to him. The creation craves the attention and demands that his perspective and struggles be heard much like the proletariat to the bourgoisie. But according to Montag, the creature represents the unrepresentability of the proletariat. This mass of people, the working class, the peasants and the slaves all want their lives to be generally improved and they attempt this through the authority of a bourgoisie leader/figurehead. But that bourgoisie individual and the individuals of that same class have their own agenda to push that would still of course benefit them in some way, I personally doubt they would support a revolution that didn’t in some way give them more power or authority. Because of the different agendas and degree of change these two different classes demand, the unrepresentability of the politariat is that their voice/opinions may have to be approved and supported by bourgoisie authority which is the opposite of what they demand because I get the vibe that they know what they want and they want it now! For their demands to have to agree with anothers agenda seems counterproductive to the movement they are part of and the change they wanted to see.

In Warren Montag’s The “Workshop of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein, he describes both of the different struggles went through by Victor (a middle-class capitalist) and his creation (the oppressed working class). Montag concludes his view point on the subject by voicing that the Creature was not so much a proletariat, rather unrepresented. After reading, I came to the conclusion that the Creature is in fact not the mere image of the working class because Victor, its creator, seems to fit this image much more; although his social status is undoubtedly higher than that of a proletariat.

It is true that Victor’s creation is viewed as being part of the oppressed working class because of the life it lead on. Abandoned and rejected everywhere it went, the Creature mirrored several struggles that proletariat’s face due to their poor social standing. However, the monster is much more absent to the working class than a part of it. Montag explains how, “the narrative (Frankenstein) suppresses all that is modern in order to render this being inexplicable and unprecedent, a being for whom there is no place in the ordered world of nature” (480). In other words, because the Creature was ultimately written with the intention of being isolated from the world, it was unable to take on any social roll.

Now, despite Victors obvious social status, I believe that he relates more to the image of a proletariat than his creation. The reason behind it being, his dedication to learning and ultimately “creating a race that would worship him as a master” (475-476). This dedication was what lead him to become a slave to his work, killing himself day in and day out to one day finally succeed. This can be seen when Victor says, “Winter, spring, and summer passed away during my labors; but I did not watch the blossom or the expanding leaves-sights which before always yielded me supreme delight-so deeply was I engrossed in my occupation” (59). In the same way, a proletariat is also a slave to the upper class, endlessly working in hopes to someday acquire a stable salary; this causing them to miss out on living and enjoying their life. Similarly, Victor “[was] always a prisoner, and perhaps most when he believed himself to be free forced to labor on a project whose ultimate meaning he remained ignorant [to]” (478). Although a working class individual perhaps never sees themselves as “free” like Frankenstein did in working, Victor can be seen as a proletariat because of the constant oppression and pressure he put on himself to create something great.

– Juanita Espinoza

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

Capitalism creates oppressive conditions for working-class proletariat that belittle their value as individuals and their existence. Warren Montag’s essay, “The ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein” examines how the the plight of the proletariat by the wealthy bourgeoisie is reflected in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Montang concludes that Frankenstein’s monster is “not so much the sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability” (480). I agree with Montag that the monster is a sign of the proletariat’s unrepresentability, considering the monster’s devaluation and grievances.

Under capitalism, the proletariats, are alienated not only from the products of their labor but also themselves. The poor workers labor and produce but, because of meager wages, they will likely never have the means to afford these products no matter how much they exhaust themselves. The proletariat are also alienated from their sense of self as labor consumes their identity and their individuality is lost. This is reflected in Shelley’s novel when Frankenstein’s monster says, “I discovered also another means through which I was enabled to assist their labors. I found that the young [Felix] spent a great part of each day in collecting wood for the family fire; and, during the night, I often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days” (102). One could argue that this decision to help the De Lacey family was the creature’s choice and not mandated onto him by the bourgeoisie. However, these actions were taken on as a means of survival the same way the excruciating work of the proletariat is the only way under capitalism, other than a revolution, that they can continue living. The monster’s labor is done in an effort to be recognized by the family as a benevolent being and be accepted into human society instead of being an outcast as he was made by Frankenstein and other humans. The family, who possess social capital, decides what fate the monster receives just as the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, determine how much impoverished workers are compensated. The parties who actually benefit from the labor, however, is the family who does not have to collect their own wood and the capitalists who profit from selling the products produced by the poor, while the creature and the poor continue their exploited lives.

The capitalist, bourgeois society in which Frankenstein’s monster and poor laborers alienate themselves also alienates them from other ranks in society and deprives them of their humanity. Since the proletariat produces all the products and are seen as just means to an end, little importance is placed on their lives or concerns. Montag states that, “Utterly absent from the narrative is any description or explanation of the process by which the monster was created” (477). By having this absence that Montag mentions, there is distance created between the monster and the rest of society and indicates that his origins and existence is not a matter of importance because in the end he is just the lower class who will never reach anything beyond that ranking. Also, just as the bourgeoisie “reduc[ed] the numbers of workers necessary to the production process” in order to make way for technological “industrial developments” (472), the monster is immediately abandoned by Victor Frankenstein as soon as he is dissatisfied with the final result of his creation, alluding to the characterization of worthlessness placed on the working-class that could be disposed and replaced at any moment the bourgeoisie chose. This loss of humanity and commodification, is the “unrepresentability” Montag refers to. Because the proletariat are reduced to machines working for the benefit of the upper and middle classes, they are not supposed to have a voice or have themselves or their concerns represented. The monster’s failed efforts at social mobility and his lack of power and authority not only mirror the proletariat but also marginalize him within the frame of the novel, eliminating his power to represent and voice himself within the novel as well. It is through this unrepresentability that Frankenstein’s monster represents that of the proletariat class under the oppressive conditions and unjust conditions of capitalism.  

The proletariat are monsters because of the monstrous, classist economic system developed by the rich, ruling, capitalists. The bourgeoisie did produce a product…economic servitude and the existence of the impoverished, disenfranchised proletariat. However, unlike the products forced onto the proletariat class, they receive capital that they will continue to use to exploit them, help themselves, and maintain the cycle of capitalism.

– Wendy Gutierrez

By: Katherine Hernandez

When reading a work of literature as iconic as Frankenstein, readers tend to develop very different and sometimes controversial interpretations. In the essay, The “Work of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein by Warren Montag, the reader is left with the interpretation that Frankenstein’s creation is the bourgeoisie in the book and that Victor is the proletariat who is terrorized by the demands of this creation. However, from my point of view, Frankenstein’s creation is, in fact, the embodiment of the working class, the proletariat side of society. Montag constantly compares the creation to the intricate work of new technology that was being introduced during the era Mary Shelley wrote and published her book, at times even calling that Victor is rightfully so to be afraid of his creation because it symbolizes the fear of the proletariat in this time of changes in society and the technological advances that came with it. He gathers historical context from Mary Shelley’s time such as the rise of the Industrial Revolution in order to convince the reader that the rise of technology was monstrous much like the creation and thus Victor had every right to be afraid of it, however, the question arises. Should we blame technology for simply doing what it is meant to do? Or is the thing at fault the creator itself? Montag created a hole in his argument, one cannot simply blame things for taking their natural course, we must hold those who created these things, such as technology, responsible. Victor’s creation is the most effortless symbolism of the working class not only during Mary Shelley’s time but also in a time that transcends her era.

The passage in chapter 20 of the novel, pages 145-146, clearly depicts how the creature is the living, breathing embodiment of the proletariat struggle. Throughout the whole novel we are able to see how The Creation struggles with fitting into to social norms and his constant struggle with dehumanization of isolation. Most of his life is spent in longing, spent in a headspace of having hopes and dreams and wanting more out of life. This is especially evident when Frankenstein retracts his promise to his creation and The Creation mourns for his struggles in life recalling his “toil and misery….[his] impeccable fatigue, [the] cold and hunger, [and Victor still] dares to destroy his hopes and dreams.” (145) The Creation is the poster child for the working class struggle. Victor is, in fact, the bourgeoisie who continually makes false promises to the working class in order to continue exploiting them. This passage greatly contradicts with Warren Montag’s ideas of Victor’s creation. The Creation fits in every shape and form to the working class’ constantly mistreated, the underdog, the ones with hopes and dreams that are much to often destroyed by the bourgeois in order to keep the gears of the capitalistic operation running.

Frank

In reading Warren Montag’s “The Workshop of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein, Montag claims that “the monster is the proletariat” (474), in that the proletariat during the times of the French Revolution, when united together, created a “monster that, once unleashed, could not be controlled” (471). The bourgeoisie, being the one that was forced to rally the proletariat in order to be adequately represented, seemed to not have as much power as they may have believed, seeing as they were the elite, of higher social status, as Frankenstein was to the monster. The power then, fell onto the proletarian working class, which brings us back to Montag’s claim that the monster in the novel is the proletariat, unable to be controlled, possessing power over his creator, Victor Frankenstein (the bourgeoisie) as seen during the monster and Victor’s conversation after Victor had destroyed the companion he had begun to create when the monster states, “Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom” (146). In addition, the monster, much like the proletariat, did not seem to have much a “voice” in the society in which he worked so hard to be accepted by and even “endured toil and misery” (145) as a result.

In conclusion, I somewhat agree with Montag’s conclusion that the creature is “not so much a sign of the proletariat as of its unrepresentability” (480), because while he was not so much connected with the “working” class since he did not necessarily work as a proletariat did during the times of the French and English Revolutions, he was however, very much connected to the proletariat in the fact that they were unrepresented, looked down upon, and had struggled under the bourgeoisie, or in the monster’s case, as a result of the actions of the bourgeoisie (Frankenstein).

-Serena Ya