One of the greatest questions of morality I saw (and the class talked about) was how Lore never acknowledges the other side of the monopoly argument. As far as she is concerned, since the van de Oest products are superior to the others, they have the right to dominate the market. As the son of two educators from a middleclass family, this was about as opposite my thought patterns as possible. The grand revelation she has about her family’s rise to monopoly was all focused on the corruption behind it, not on the nature of the monopoly itself.

The theme of dependence is dominant from the start in Lore's relationship with Spanner. She arrives "naked and nameless in the city." (5) When she first encounters Spanner, she is lying on the gorund, utterly helpless. Spanner nearly leaves her, but finally decides to help. Then, as Lore goes back to Spanner's home, she realizes that she "needed this woman, Spanner; depended on her, in a way that was shocking." (11) For Lore, a child of privelege, confident in her education and her ability, this is a very difficult situation to accept.

Since it has not really been addressed yet, the question of race in Slow River is a very interesting one. As someone else mentioned, the gender dynamic is a departure from what we have been reading because Griffith creates an arguably homonormative environment where Lore’s life is inundated with lesbian friends and even an uncle with a husband, demonstrating the total acceptance of gay marriage in this society. As far as race, it is not an issue in any of the main or love interest characters.

I use my second drop on this response.