Like all classicists, Faulkner comes into his academic work possessing biases. Unlike the vast majority of his peers, however, Faulkner is up-front about what those biases are. Seeking to present an accessible Marxian interpretation of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, Faulkner ultimately writes a compelling narrative that is of use to none. Rome is too much of a layman's text for classicists to be comfortable with it (the author dispenses with footnotes and strict referencing in order to appeal to a wider audience), and yet too academic to assign as a textbook or provide to the general reader. Indeed, the very fact of Faulkner's blatant biases must necessitate the removal of his work from any introductory suite of texts. Faulkner nonetheless deserves credit for speaking bluntly and harshly about the Roman Empire at a time when many classicists still fawn over her, and I do find Rome professionally interesting as part of my focus on reception theory. Future reception theorists will doubtless look back on the work--published in 2008--as a product of its time; a reaction more to American imperialism than Roman imperialism. Let that not be heard as a criticism.