Mind Matters: A Book Club for Big Ideas

Join us for a discussion of SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In SPQR, Beard offers a wide-ranging reinterpretation of Roman history, focusing less on emperors and battles than on citizenship, political conflict, and the lived experience of ordinary Romans. Beginning with Rome’s early myths and moving through the Republic into the early Empire, she examines how a small Italian city expanded into a vast Mediterranean power while continually renegotiating who counted as a Roman and what political participation meant. Rather than presenting Rome as a straightforward story of rise and decline, Beard highlights internal tensions—between elites and masses, center and periphery, liberty and autocracy—and argues that many debates central to Roman politics still resonate in modern political life.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Beard emphasizes political conflict and debate as central to Rome’s development. How does this focus alter the traditional narrative of military conquest and imperial expansion?
2. The book treats Roman citizenship as flexible and evolving. How important was this adaptability to Rome’s longevity and success?
3. Beard often questions or reinterprets familiar stories about famous figures and events. Does this revisionist approach strengthen or weaken the historical narrative?
4. How does the transition from Republic to Empire appear in Beard’s account—gradual evolution, sharp rupture, or something more ambiguous?
5. To what extent does Rome’s political culture resemble aspects of modern democratic or republican systems, and where do the analogies break down?
6. Beard gives attention to non-elite Romans and marginalized voices where possible. How effectively can ancient history recover these perspectives?
7. Does the book challenge the idea of Rome as a uniquely exceptional civilization, or does it ultimately reinforce it?
8. After reading SPQR, do you see the legacy of Rome as primarily institutional, cultural, legal, or symbolic—and why?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

Spartacus Books Presents: Radical Readings - Science as Fiction
In this reading series, we will be alternating between scientific epistemology and science fiction stories that explore those epistemologies.

Currently Reading: W.E.B. Du Bois’ short story “The Comet” from his book Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBUvVveCn-fCbjAbaRyTYyQqUdBVsRwL/view

Audio version: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-cool-zone-media-book-club-289559732/episode/czm-book-club-the-comet-by-325182381/

Readings are free and meetings are on a drop in basis. Please feel free to join in, even if you are just interested and can’t do the reading.

For the schedule of future events in this series, please see: https://spartacusbooks.net/events/

Join us for a discussion of The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes by Zachary D. Carter.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In The Price of Peace, Carter presents an intellectual biography of John Maynard Keynes that situates his economic thought within the political and moral crises of the twentieth century. Moving from Keynes’s early work on probability and finance through his role at Versailles and the development of macroeconomic theory during the Great Depression, the book argues that Keynes’s central concern was not merely technical stabilization but the preservation of liberal democracy against the destabilizing forces of austerity, mass unemployment, and fascism. Carter portrays Keynes as a thinker who saw economic management as a means to secure social peace, cultural flourishing, and political freedom, and he contrasts that vision with later technocratic or market-fundamentalist interpretations of Keynesianism.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Carter presents Keynes as fundamentally concerned with safeguarding democracy rather than simply managing business cycles. Does this reinterpretation alter your understanding of Keynesian economics?
2. How does the book connect the punitive settlement at Versailles to the political instability that followed? Is the argument persuasive?
3. To what extent does Carter portray Keynes as a moral philosopher as well as an economist?
4. The book links austerity politics to democratic fragility. How convincing is the historical case for that connection?
5. Does Carter’s account suggest that postwar “Keynesianism” faithfully reflected Keynes’s own views, or that it narrowed and technocratized them?
6. How does Keynes’s emphasis on uncertainty and probability complicate standard economic models based on rational expectations?
7. What parallels, if any, do you see between the interwar period and contemporary global economic tensions?
8. After reading the book, do you see economic policy primarily as a technical exercise, a political instrument, or a moral project—and why?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

N.B: Date to be confirmed and RSVP opens 4 weeks in advance.

Join us for a discussion of The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 by Chris Wickham
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In The Inheritance of Rome, Wickham reexamines the period between 400 and 1000 CE, challenging the notion of the “Dark Ages” as a simple story of collapse and regression. Focusing on western Europe, Byzantium, and the early Islamic world, he traces how Roman political, economic, and cultural structures fragmented, persisted, and were reconfigured in successor states. Rather than depicting a uniform decline, Wickham highlights regional variation: in some areas, complex fiscal systems and urban life contracted sharply; in others, new forms of power and identity emerged. The book argues that medieval Europe was shaped less by abrupt rupture than by uneven transformation, as Roman legacies were adapted to new political and social realities.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Wickham resists the label “Dark Ages.” Does his account successfully overturn the idea of widespread civilizational decline after Rome?
2. How persuasive is the emphasis on regional diversity rather than a single narrative of collapse?
3. To what extent did Roman fiscal and administrative systems survive in successor kingdoms, and how decisive was their loss where they did not?
4. How does Wickham balance material evidence (taxation, landholding, trade) against cultural or ideological continuity?
5. What role did the Byzantine Empire and the early Islamic caliphates play in preserving or transforming Roman legacies?
6. Does the book suggest that economic simplification necessarily entails cultural or political decline?
7. How does Wickham’s interpretation compare with more traditional accounts centered on invasions and barbarian conquest?
8. After reading the book, do you see the period 400–1000 primarily as a story of loss, adaptation, or creative transformation—and why?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.