From the article: " ...when a man's son prostitutes himself to a member of Atia's staff, instead of accepting it, the man seeks revenge -- how else? -- by gang-raping the staff member. Yes, nothing restores honor to a family quite like forced sodomy.

As anyone who studied ancient Rome on anything more than a superficial level knows, to the Roman male, honor came from being an active force, not a passive one. this was true in politics and war, but especially in sex. The real man, in order to have respect and be honored, was a penetrator. To be on the receiving end was shameful. To recover his standing, he had turn around and be the aggressor. Just a little time spent reading Catullus will make this clear. When he starts off one poem with "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"--"Up your ass and in your mouth...", he is being very Roman.

On the whole, I just love this series. It has its errors, but it is about as close to the real thing as we are ever likely to get. The gritty nature of late republican Rome comes through, looking like what we would now call third world, is just perfect. No pristine, gleaming white marble, just fithy streets, brick everywhere and riotous color. Plus, ya just gotta love Pullo...

Ms Harilesky,

Even before the new season started you mentioned in one of your columnss that you can't believe HBO decided to cancel your beloved Deadwood and instead kept Entourage and Rome. I loved Deadwood too but it's stupid to compare every drama to it and find them wanting. Deadwood was brilliant and complex and had fascinating characters and amazing dialog. It also went long stretches without anything at all happening. Does that mean I should feel the need to compare it to 24? Rome attempts to portray one of the most unique and fascinating periods in human history in a new and original light, and it succeeds. Let it go and enjoy Rome as one of the finest historical series ever put on television. Stop comparing it to other, equally brilliant, but very different shows like Deadwood and The Wire.

how does it compare to my old favourite, I, Claudius? Granted. No $100 million epic budget. Just papier mache columns, fake trees, endless close-ups and one of the most compelling political dramas I can remember. No surprise that critics have praised The Sopranos by comparing it to that long-ago studio-bound soap opera.

Heather, you are saying that for $100 million we're not getting enough. The Forum set, which you fail to even mention, covers a full six acres, the largest modern set in the world and it's still only 60% of the size of the actual Forum - you're more than a little unreasonable. The producers chose to create highly detailed and historically accurate "real" sets instead of creating yet another boring computer generated metropolis. "Back alleys"? Yeah, that's what ancient Rome was like, and it's still like that. This production, while not perfect, has at least made an effort to provide us with a plebian perspective, and while you feel the patrician class is two dimensional, the characters are much more filled out than anything we've been presented with so far - have you ever watched "I, Claudius" from the '70s? Now there's two dimensional. "Rome" deserves credit and you do your readers a disservice by not doing your homework.

I wonder if Salon was invited to see the entire second season of Rome or if the opinion that it is too narrow is based upon a couple of episodes viewed and presumptions based upon the first season?

Also, if someone else came up with another 12-hour film(the non-commercial interruption format pretty much dictates that, while episodic, it is more film than Television) of this scope, scale and quality that costs less than 100 million dollars, they'd have a job at HBO.

Season I of Rome rocked -Period...and I have zero reason to think season II will be any different.

Mark Bittmann

Riverside, CA

I think the claustrophobic nature of so much of "Rome" is absolutely one of its best assets. I've heard that the designers took modern Calcutta as a model for the Roman streets, and I love the way so much is going on in the background of all of those wildly colorful and crowded street scenes - the picture has such a three-dimensional look.

You can't dream up a better cast, and "Rome" has that elusive quality of looking like the actors are having a screaming good time doing their job. How often do we Americans get to see Lindsay Duncan in all her devious glory? David Bamber saying so much with only the look in his eyes and a head tilt?

As far as comparing "I, Claudius," it's a different animal altogether. "Rome" is soapier, but also a lot funnier and more engaging. I loved "I, Claudius," but there were times when it dragged, and although it does take about two episodes to sort out who is who in "Rome" you never get bored (at least, I didn't).

"Outside of their palaces, we see nothing but back alleys populated by wild-eyed lunatics and freaks, or open stretches of countryside. With a production budget of $100 million, shouldn't we expect to see the city of Rome, in all of its glory?"

We do. Rome, particularly Rome of the late 1st Century BCE, was principally a city of back alleys and what we would characterize as slums. It bore a far greater resemblance to modern-day Calcutta or Mexico City than it did to Mussolini's model of the city in the 4th Century CE or to the Beaux-Arts fantasy "white city". The series' plot is more Aaron Spelling than Robert Graves, but if you know anything at all about history, you have to love the sets.

I doesn't. That's one of the problems that has plagued this series. It exists in the shaddow of I, Claudius. I, Claudius had incomparable writing, brilliant performances, simple sets that never distracted but wonderfully set the scene...and it was a darn good history lesson. Robert Graves told the story keeping very very close to history. He didn't need to make up ficticious characters to intrude upon the events or change historical characters to create drama. He let historical fact create the drama. Modern historians now dispute Livia's scheming and poisonings, but contemporary Roman historians leveled those charges against her.

Rome is bloated with fiction and distortions and too much money put into veneer. If you're not familiar with I, Claudius, read the book and buy the dvd set. Its truly brilliant....and after John Hurt no one will ever beable to play Caligula again, he's absolutely perfect.