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. 19 No. 16 · 21 August 1997

Search by issue:

Those Awful Serbs

Charles Simic is a scintillating writer, but his review of Tim Judah’s book was blustery (LRB, 31 July). Western politicians and commentators were hardly to blame if Serbian warmongering obscured the reality of a Serb Problem in Yugoslavia. As for that ‘dreadful bias’ in the Western media, does Simic really believe the coverage was at odds with events on the ground? How can anyone, considering the recent carnage and continuing misery, scorn, as Simic seems to, the notion that around 1990 the Serbs ‘should have worked within the system’ instead of assailing it? Which Western ‘enthusiasts of the break-up’ wanted Bosnia to be an ethnic theme-park? This imputed ambition is known to me only from Serb, Croat and Bosniak agitprop. And Croatia’s 1990 Constitution did not redefine the republic as a national state: this definition was present in the Titoist Constitution of 1974.

Mark Thompson
Dubrovnik, Croatia

Poets take heart!

I took out a Small Claim in the Whitehaven County Court when Reed axed a collection of my poems which Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson had accepted for publication. Having just won my case, I would like other authors who find themselves in a similar predicament to know that the acceptance of a book for publication can be legally binding, even though a formal contract may not have been signed. The fact that there are so few precedents (Harold Abrahams won in 1922, and Andrew Malcolm won on appeal against OUP in 1990) leads me to think that many authors feel that their hands are tied or that litigation would be too costly and long-drawn-out. The court fee is only £70, but the lapse of time between the devastating repudiation of all the books, including mine, on the Sinclair-Stevenson poetry list (10 April 1995) and the drawing of the court order was over two years. On 18 June Reed were given 28 days to pay, but no cheque has arrived. Compiling my statement for the court took many days; I ended up with over fifty documents in support of my case. It will all have been worthwhile if others can benefit from referring to the outcome of this case (Whitehaven County Court: Case No. WH650087). Anyone interested in having a copy of my claim and witness statement to the court should send me a cheque for £2.

I was greatly helped by having Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson and his secretary willing to appear as witnesses. They had no reason to doubt that publication would ensue once the written acceptance of my collection had been sent. The Reed managing director, John Potter, who wrote the letter of dismissal to more than a dozen poets, even ones who had already signed the formal contract, was presumably motivated in part by what he said in response to a phone call from Michael Glover on the subject: ‘We can’t piss any more money against that wall.’ The lack of interest the directors showed in the matter was borne out by their not even being represented at the hearing, submitting only a written statement, which said that the ‘acceptance’ of my book was ‘no more than the early stages of negotiation with a view to a formal contract being drawn up’. Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson’s witness statement refers to a contract (meaning a formal contract) being drawn up ‘on the basis of all our poetry contracts’! What’s more, the Reed submission went on, ‘there was no previous course of dealing to establish the terms of any publishing contract and the Plaintiff was not aware of the majority of the terms which would have been offered.’ Formal contracts are rarely offered for signature long before the date of publication. The solicitors’ bible, Chitty on Contracts, has in the section ‘Incomplete Agreement’ the following: ‘The fact that the parties envisage that the letter is to be superseded by a later, more formal contractual document does not, of itself, prevent it from taking effect as a contract.’ Is it naive to hope for the drawing up by publishers of a binding preliminary contract with details of royalties, date-limit for publication etc?

Christopher Pilling
25 High Hill, Keswich, Cumbria CA12 5NY

Wrong Man

I was surprised to find the name Joseph Needham popping up in Murray Sayle’s thought-provoking review of Robert Whymant’s book on Richard Sorge and the wartime Soviet spy ring in Tokyo (LRB, 22 May). Your readers might have assumed that the reference was to the late Cambridge biochemist, sinologist and historian of science, who at the time was also a prominent anti-Fascist writer and organiser. In fact, there is a mistake in Sayle’s description of how the frustrated Sorge leaked news of the impending Operation Barbarossa to the Western press. The New York Herald Tribune’s article of 31 May 1941 reporting Japanese expectations of the Nazi invasion was not by Needham, but by Joseph Newman, the paper’s Tokyo correspondent. As there is a tendency for myths to accrue to Needham, whose assistant I used to be, it would be helpful if this story could be scotched at source.

Gregory Blue
University of Victoria

Inside a French Milkman

Peter Campbell’s piece on medical imaging (LRB, 31 July) expressed a wish to know more about the mathematics of tomography. The problem is to reconstruct an image of a slice through a body from a set of readings, known as projections, taken as an X-ray source and detector are routed in a circle around the slice. If we know what is in a body we can calculate what will happen to an X-ray that passes through it. The problem here is the inverse – given the X-ray data, determine what is in the body through which it passed – and is, in the language of mathematics, ill-posed: it may not admit of a unique solution. There was, however, an approach to this kind of problem developed by an Austrian mathematician called Radon, 56 years before the inception of tomography.

The theorem deals with the Fourier transform of the image: the set of elementary wave-like patterns, each defined by a frequency, an amplitude and an orientation, which if superimposed would produce the image. The theorem states that the Fourier transform of the one-dimensional projection at each position of the detector forms one line through the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the image we seek to construct. So, if we have Fourier transforms of enough projections, we will have a set of lines from which we can assemble the Fourier transform of the image we require. There is a well-known equation for deriving an image from its Fourier transform. Rejigging this using the theorem, one can derive an equation which has two parts, corresponding to a two-stage process for image reconstruction: filtering and back-projection. The second stage is easy to explain: think of each X-ray as a jet of some kind of magic ink that can pass easily through air, less easily through tissue and hardly at all through bone, and imagine that the detector is a sponge which absorbs only the ink which passes in a straight line through the slice. Back-projection is equivalent to dragging the sponge across a sheet of paper in the direction corresponding to that travelled by the X-ray, so that all the ink in the sponge is transferred smoothly to the paper. If an exposure was taken for every possible line through the slice, the pattern of ink built up on the paper would be an (admittedly pretty ropey) image of the way ink was absorbed in the slice: which bits were bone, which were tissue and so on. The first stage can be thought of as a process which produces ‘filtered’ data suitable for back-projection, by combining the Fourier transform of the projection data with a mathematical function, the definition of which is neither perspicuous nor intuitive.

The calculations involved are not exactly the stuff of mental arithmetic and the rendering of the relevant acronym as Computer Assisted Tomography perhaps understates the contribution of the computer. The OED prefers Computerised Axial Tomography but the process is now universally known as CT. A much more exciting development in medical imaging acronyms is the addition of a lowercase ‘f’ before MRI. In MRI, as in CT, stacks of two-dimensional images form a three-dimensional representation of anatomy. Such scans can now be completed at a speed which allows the charting of fluctuations over time, enabling the reconstruction of images which are no longer representations of static anatomy but which visualise anatomical function. The promise of fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is that we might be able not just to look inside a French milkman, but to see what he is thinking. Or at least the impact that his mental life is having on his cerebral blood flow. Such is our curiosity about this topic that it now attracts the kind of funding Peter Campbell worries might be lacking for medical imaging research.

Paul Taylor
UCL Medical School,

Mind your L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E

Jeremy Harding, in his review of Conductors of Chaos and other works (LRB, 3 July), rightly points out the importance of Poundian Modernism and an American poetic tradition coming out of Objectivism as one context for a significant area of English poetic production over the last thirty years. However, despite noting that Carl Rakosi recovered ‘the possibility of poetry’ through the intervention of the English poet Andrew Crozier, Harding manages to maintain the impression that relations between English and American innovative poetry have all been one-way, and misses some of the dialogue that has actually taken place. For example, he suggests that the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E writers ‘won a hearing in Britain shortly after the launch of their journal in 1978’. Not only does the metaphor deny the possibility of dialogue, but the statement occludes the ‘hearing’ that poets such as Tom Raworth and Allen Fisher had already ‘won’ from ‘language writers’ before L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E was launched. In his Introduction to the anthology In the American Tree, Ron Silliman includes Raworth, Fisher and cris cheek in the list of individuals who ‘participated in the greater discourse of which this poetry is but a particular axis’. Before the publication of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E becomes fixed as the moment of contact between language writing and these shores, it is worth noting that some English poets in the area of production that Conductors of Chaos gestures towards were known to some of the American poets who were to become language writers, were present in some of the language-writing magazines that preceded L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, and were, literally, in dialogue with ‘language writers’ from the mid-Seventies. Ken Edwards, for example, published work by both James Sherry and Alan Davies in Alembic 6 (Summer 1977); and went on to publish work by Sherry and Charles Bernstein in the first volume of Reality Studios in 1978.

Robert Hampson
Royal Holloway College

In His Own Name

In his review of the latest Pessoa books (LRB, 17 July), Adam Phillips writes that Pessoa ‘has been blessed by his translators’, and lists Jonathan Griffin, Keith Bosley, Richard Zenith, Edwin Honig and Susan Brown. Two further translators, James Greene and Clara de Azevedo Mafra, have translated 25 poems written in arguably the most ‘confounding’ of Pessoa’s personae – his own name. These translations, contained in our bilingual edition, The Surprise of Being (Angel Books, 1986) are now being reprinted in paperback.

Antony Wood
Angel Books

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.