Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Letters

Vol. 14 No. 14 · 23 July 1992

Search by issue:

Yaaaggghhhh

The Craig Copetas I knew was a regular visitor to my flat in West Parade, Norwich during the autumn of 1972. He was a loud, friendly American with a tendency to mythologise; overnight, a puff on a joint and a bag of crisps would become a two-day orgy. My flatmate then was John Webb, who now lives in Vancouver. We welcomed Copetas in, as we did many others, but later on we began, rather guiltily, to avoid him; he was perfectly harmless, but he was also too excited, too garrulously amazed by his life to be interesting company. Who would want to hold that against him now? We were all young and excited. But today he pops up in your pages (LRB, 25 June) reminiscing in the Gonzo style, twenty years older and curiously unchanged.

Things have come to a sorry pass in a fellow’s life when there appears to be advantage in posing as a flatmate of mine, and I would have let the matter rest had not Copetas also offered me his advice on writing and ‘reality’. I think I catch his self-loving drift – he wants me to write like a stoned hippy. But I never did that, even, or especially, when I was one. I write like this.

For the record then: I never shared a flat with Craig Copetas. We were never writers ‘together’, and we never picked up girls together. This person Claude, whom I do not recall, did not set out on his journey to oblivion from my flat, I threw no party for him and nor did I accompany him to the airport – and so on. But who cares what happened? Only me, I suppose, and my old friend, John Webb. I am sure Craig Copetas remembers those times well enough to write an honest, amusing piece, but here he has attached himself into my past, or me into his, in a way that is predatory and fraudulent. The whole piece is, as William Burroughs might observe, a tissue of horseshit. Yaaaggghhhh indeed!

Ian McEwan
Oxford

Craig Copetas writes: Is it not amazing how, as our generation gets older, our perceptions of the past diverge? I am grateful that the Ian McEwan I knew let me live in the back room at West Parade for as long as I did. I am sorry, however, that he has lost his sense of humour.

Without knowing why

Victor Mallet (LRB, 28 May) does a serious disservice to the people of Cambodia, and to the views of David Chandler, in his almost total omission of the role of the US in Cambodia during the ‘decade of genocide’. The people of Cambodia are frequently referred to, or cited as, lacking a ‘sense of reality’; ‘allowing terrible things to be done to them’; ‘fatalism is still discernible’; ‘how could Cambodians do this to each other?’ These characteristics could lead one to the impression of a nation of people simply lacking a priori will/volition etc. The role of the US bombings in all of this is mentioned once, tangentially. If we turn to some other David Chandler contributions to the history of Cambodia, we find the following alternative perspective: ‘What drove the Cambodians to kill? Paying off old scores or imaginary ones played a part, but to a large extent, I think, American actions are to blame. From 1969 to 1973, after all, we dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside. Nearly half this tonnage fell in 1973 … In those few months, we may have driven thousands of people out of their minds … We bombed Cambodia without knowing why … it is ironic, to use a colourless word, for us to accuse the Cambodians of being indifferent to life when, for so many years, Cambodian lives made so little difference to us.’ A second illuminating extract from Chandler makes one of the missing historical links that would help Mr Mallet to stop anguishing over the question of ‘how Cambodians could do this to each other’: ‘The bombing destroyed a good deal of the fabric of pre-war Cambodian society and provided the CPK (Khmer Rouge) with the psychological ingredients of a violent, vengeful and unrelenting social revolution.’

I suggest that Mr Mallet consider the likely effects of over 500,000 tons of bombing (‘without knowing why’) before he embarks on further racist insinuations about a Cambodian auto-genocide.

Phil Read
Strasbourg, France

No Such Words

D.J. Enright’s interesting review of J.P. Stern’s The Heart of Europe (LRB, 11 June) states how ‘an anecdote that catches Stern’s fancy has to do with Freud, who when he left Vienna in 1938 was asked to sign a statement declaring that he had not been ill-treated; like a parting guest writing in a hotel visitors’ book, he added the comment: “I can recommend the Gestapo most highly to everyone." ’ This tale has been in print at least since the Fifties, yet it is now established that the story is a myth. Perhaps Freud commented, in conversation or in letters, something to the same effect. But the Gestapo piece of paper contains no such words.

Paul Roazen
Toronto

The Game of Death

In reply to Hyam Maccoby (Letters, 25 June): 1. I did not say – and do not think – that the myths which provided the plots of Greek tragedy had lost all religious force. 2. I do indeed reject the view that the tragedies we possess were ritual re-enactments of the death of Dionysus. As E.R. Dodds used to say, the essence of ritual is repeatability. The Mass, variously performed in various places, remains one thing (compare ‘When you’ve seen one ritual murder, you’ve seen the lot’). The Dionysia were clearly not a ritual of this kind: year after year, different structures were presented, often to the amazement of the spectators (yes, ‘spectators’, not ‘participants’; the Greek word which gives ‘theatre’ is a place where people watch). Indeed, the fact that both the festival and the theatre bear the name of Dionysus makes it the more striking, in my view, that the tragedies range freely over the available myths. This is odd, if you like, but not mind-numbingly odd. If I may offer an admittedly frail analogy, it is as if we had in London a St George’s Theatre and a St George’s Day Festival at which all sorts of plays were performed. Of course it is possible, by metaphor, to interpret all Greek tragedies as accounts of the death and resurrection of Dionysus, but it would be equally possible to show, by like means, that all Greek tragedies are about Heracles (or Apollo, or Orestes, or Athene …). My thought was doggedly elementary: which is the more appropriate term to apply to these texts, ‘ritual’ or ‘play’? I go for ‘play’. That said, Maccoby is right to say that Greek religious feeling is powerfully present. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral is brimful of Christianity. But it isn’t a ritual.

A.D. Nuttall
New College, Oxford

Fair Coppe

In his review of A.D. Nuttall’s Openings (LRB, 11 June), Sir Frank Kermode mentions Nuttall’s reference to one Ebenezer Coppe (in fact, Nuttall simply has ‘Ranter Coppe’). As the discerning will know, the correct name is Abiezer Coppe.

Nigel Smith
Keble College, Oxford

Frank Kermode’s review of A.D. Nuttall’s Openings refers to ‘the Red King’s advice to Alice’. The advice to ‘begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end; then stop’ is given not by the Red King to Alice (in Through the Looking Glass) but by the King of Hearts to the White Rabbit (in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland).

Nicolas Walter
London N1

Social work – what went wrong?

Sir William Utting’s article (LRB, 14 May) got it right, though he was describing less a question than an inevitability. His thesis that a weight and demand of public policy – child protection, for example – has collided with the claim to personal privacy in family life is depressingly true; and there have been a lot of casualties. However, my concern in writing is to suggest that one reinforcement of the apparent lack of public support, and of public affection, for social workers is that no one writes literature about them. Policemen, teachers, doctors, nurses and firemen all have regular slots on TV, in films, radio, plays, novels and children’s comics. Inspector Morse, Dr Finlay and Mr Chips, for example. And they appear in ways which present them as three-dimensional. Occasionally they are bad or nasty, but more often kind, sometimes eccentric, humorous, and from time to time heroic. They have recognisable human weaknesses, as well as strengths. Of course they have been around, identifiably, for longer than social workers. But social workers do some of the things that they do.

To no avail. On the box, with the exception of the old Probation Officer series long ago (and probation officers in dirty raincoats are a different species), I can recall clearly only sporadic appearances by social workers. A Seventies play about child abuse When the bough breaks; Griff Rhys Jones three years ago in A View of Harry Clark; and this year a female social worker appearing in a police serial and playing second fiddle to a shabby, collapsing but loveable detective. In most appearances, with the exception of the very attractive black social worker in EastEnders, they were portrayed as neurotic, down-at-heel, hopeless and humourless. Viewers would not want them as friends or next-door neighbours. And I am afraid the bookcase is pretty empty too. If we disregard Oliver Twist, with the corpulent Beadle and lengthy shadow of the workhouse, only Hilary Mantel makes an appearance, with Mother’s Day, which is at least funny, though at the social workers’ expense.

So the non-fiction side has a clear run. TV news bulletins featuring some harassed, shifty-looking Director of Social Services explaining what went wrong; the huge and turgid reports on public enquiries into scandals; and scruffy bands of social work pickets ‘defending’ what went wrong, blot out everything else in the public mind.

David Townsend
Director of Social Services, London Borough of Croydon

Bad Fax

Due to the scrambling of faxed proofs and the consequent need to dictate copy down the line, there were two errors in my article ‘Cheered in the street, much as Charles or Di’ (LRB, 9 July). 1. A sentence got garbled: ‘The growth rate, which averaged only 1.4 per cent p.a. over the whole decade of the Eighties, has been negative for three years now.’ 2. It would be quite untrue to say that ‘there are few white middle-class families left’ in South Africa. That sentence should have read: ‘There are few white middle-class families left, especially Jewish ones, in which some, most or all the kids are not in the UK, US, Australia or Canada, while the parents agonise about whether to join them.’

R.W. Johnson
University of Natal

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.