Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — 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.


Vol. 22 No. 24 · 14 December 2000

Search by issue:


Frank Kermode wonders (LRB, 30 November) why the verb ‘to motor’ is upper-class while the noun ‘motor’ is plebeian. It is not clear that this is so, or at least that it has always been so. That vast exercise in literary-sporting completism, The Badminton Library, compiled under the patronage of an ancestor of James Lees-Milne’s landlord, the ungentlemanly but aristocratic Duke of Beaufort, includes a volume entitled Motors. Contributors include the Hon. John Scott-Montagu MP, who informs us that ‘the utility of the motor is endless,’ the Marquis de Chasseloup-Laubat and Sir David Salomons, Bart, who provides an essay on ‘The Motor Stable and Its Management’. If there has been a social divergence in the use of the two forms of the same word since the origins of automobilism we probably need a Lees-Milne to explain why.

Andrew Taylor
London SW1

Sheffield looked after you

Maurice Marks (Letters, 16 November) remembers someone in the Sheffield Education Department taking the trouble to see that he got to grammar school and in his autobiography, A Local Habitation, Richard Hoggart tells a similar story about an official in Leeds, who went out of his way to make sure the young Hoggart got in at Cockburn High School. That official may well have been George Guest, or someone in his department, and if Chris Price, in the same issue, thought Guest a mean old sod, that may have been because Price was at Leeds Grammar School which, being an independent establishment, would not come under the aegis of the municipal authority or get much sympathy there. LGS was always thought of as a posh school and snobbish, too, and I'm glad to see Price's experience confirming this. I doubt that it has changed much and am sure it remains endearingly Old Testament in its morals, a recent headmaster warning the school that homosexuality was an abomination.

Chris Price also takes me to task about the buses of the West Yorkshire Road Car Company. He will be relieved to know that we do not really differ. It's true, as Price points out, that the red West Yorkshire buses would deposit you at Vicar Lane bus station, particularly if you were coming from somewhere east of Leeds … Scholes, say, or Stanks. But the long-haul buses to the east coast also left from Wellington Street which, if you came from West Leeds, as we did, was a much more convenient departure point. I have a feeling that on the rare occasions when they were not filled up at Wellington Street, buses would then call in at Vicar Lane to pick up a few more passengers, this possibly confusing the young Price.

The bus station at Wellington Street has utterly vanished, as has the architecturally much more interesting Central Station which stood opposite, part of the site now taken up with something big and banal to do with the Post Office. While much of Vicar Lane bus station has disappeared, too, and been converted into a car park, the west range of buildings still stands, always intriguing to me as a child because built in a peculiarly edible-looking brick, so that mindful of Hansel and Gretel, I fancied it might be made out of ginger biscuits.

There's plenty more where this came from but readers may already be incensed by its inconsequence.

Alan Bennett
London NW1


Susan Eilenberg’s review of my biography of Mary Wollstonecraft (LRB, 30 November) berates her for not living her theories or being entirely lovable. I stand accused of displaying a character whom no one will like. Wollstonecraft desired to control her own image, and I suspect that, when she wrote herself as an ideal mother in her works, she would not have wanted a biographer to juxtapose her pictures with her letters, as I have done, so revealing her as the everyday sort who likes a child more when cleaned and comforted by someone else. Yet, had she been a biographer, she would have described the warts. She criticised Boswell’s Life of Johnson for varnishing the doctor’s ‘overbearing ferocity’ and calling his ‘intellectual cowardice’ by the kinder name of piety. According to her, the biographer should not shift the boundaries of virtue and vice.

Wollstonecraft has always provoked extreme responses. In the 1970s (as Eilenberg reveals by haunting me with my past words) we did not care to have her dissected. But now we can stand back a bit and suggest that to be revolutionary one needs immense self-confidence, assertiveness, immodesty and competitiveness. Wollstonecraft was no more modest and easy to deal with than Kate Millett or Germaine Greer.

Eilenberg seems to discredit her for personalising issues. Wollstonecraft did constantly refer to her body, nerves and depressions in her letters, while in her early published works demanding response only to her intellect. Both tendencies, however, suggest that she would not give up the body to pleasure the mind or vice versa. Though her thoughts are at times contradictory, complex, unstable and variously committed, she always took herself seriously as a thinker and conveyed the excitement of the examined life. Although tempted, ultimately she did not wallow, like some 1970s French and American feminists, in unreason or dismiss reason as male and therefore suspect. As for the dangers of romance, to which she herself so spectacularly succumbed, there is no evidence that her views changed as a result: her own experience deepened them. She was also amazingly frank and not always self-indulgent. Even in novels, that zone of wish-fulfilment, she would not give her alter egos (and I agree with Eilenberg that she rarely detached a heroine from herself) what she had not experienced – unlike Charlotte Brontë or Geraldine Jewsbury.

Wollstonecraft is remarkable for her constant effort to express a predicament. This is what I meant by her modernity: with a few changes of language, she could be an ambitious and self-obsessed Post-Modern woman demanding it all. Probably Wollstonecraft – and certainly Godwin when he revealed her life to the public – misjudged the price of unconventionality. But, although she was in some ways foiled by her own flaws and more by cultural shifts, she tried – almost uniquely – to be true to her sense of common female needs for education, legal and political significance, as well as for affection, esteem and sex.

Janet Todd
University of East Anglia

The Face of Agamemnon

In her review of J.A. MacGillvray’s book on Arthur Evans (LRB, 30 November), Mary Beard’s excursus into the way prehistoric archaeologists debate the moral failings of their predecessors was slightly marred by her own sneer at Schliemann. ‘Who cares very much, after all,’ she asks, ‘whether he did, or did not, gaze upon the face of Agamemnon?’ referring to the familiar story that Schliemann sent a telegram from Mycenae to the King of Greece, claiming to have done just that. He did not. The whole story is best told by Leslie Fitton in her 1995 book, The Discovery of the Greek Bronze Age. She says that ‘the nearest equivalent – and it is nothing like so dramatic or romantic – seems to be his comment in a telegram to the Greek press: “The corpse very much resembles the image which my imagination formed long ago of wide-ruling Agamemnon."’ Of course, without his belief in Homer’s historical value, Schliemann wouldn’t have uncovered the shaft graves at all.

Charles Plouviez
London NW3

tarry easty

At the end of the third paragraph of my piece on Joyce in Trieste (LRB, 30 November) I originally wrote that ‘he returned briefly to the city in 1919-20.’ I was referring to Trieste, but in the transition to print the city migrated to Dublin – last visited by Joyce in 1912.

Roy Foster
Hertford College, Oxford

Battle of the Bugs

James Meek described some strange sexual strategies (LRB, 16 November), but none as strange as that of a mite discovered by the originator of the Selfish Gene theory, Bill Hamilton. Born within their mother’s womb, the brood copulates there and then, as the brothers (only one or two in each brood, with penises as big as the rest of their bodies) seek out and inseminate their sisters. Hamilton didn’t see the pregnant mites’ escape from their mother’s womb, but it presumably involved her death. He wrote that the animal suggested to him ‘a physical embodiment of a Freudian Id’.

Joe Morison
London SW9

Atlas’s ‘Bellow’, Holmes’s ‘Coleridge’

James Atlas’s attempt (Letters, 30 November) to attribute Richard Poirier’s criticism of his biography of Bellow to pique at its ‘unflattering portrait’ of Poirier doesn’t cut any ice. After all, Poirier himself cites evidence of Bellow’s animus towards him in terms that make Atlas’s treatment of Bellow’s treatment of him seem rather reticent. Atlas might have been on firmer ground had he pointed out that, having criticised him for naively equating the author and his fictional protagonists, Poirier proceeds to commit the same sin, eliding the eponymous hero of Bellow’s most recent novel, Ravelstein, with his real-life model Allan Bloom. Poirier says, for example, that ‘Bloom is HIV positive’ and that ‘throughout the book Bellow delights in his friend’s extravagant tastes in clothing.’ To paraphrase Poirier’s strictures on Atlas, the pronoun ‘he’ here ought to refer not to Bloom but to Ravelstein, who is a fictional creation, not a friend of Bellow’s.

David Brauner
University of Reading

Richard Poirier says that Mary conceived Jesus ‘immaculately’, but the Immaculate Conception, as every Catholic schoolchild knows, was that of Mary herself, who was born without original sin on her soul, all the rest of us being tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Catholics believe that God the Father spared Mary because she would be the mother of His son, Jesus. Her parents were ordinary people and certainly had sex. The Immaculate Conception has to do with sin, not sex.

Anita McBride
Orland Park, Illinois

Piety Blair

Since I’m the subject of Iain Sinclair’s generous article (LRB, 30 November), could I be the first nit-picker to point out that ‘pard’ doesn’t come from dime Westerns? You’ll find it, for instance, in Bret Harte and it was in common use after 1849 in California. The term comes from the men’s habit of partnering up to go off to look for gold. Oh, and there was a mistake which spoiled a mild joke – I didn’t call him ‘Pretty’ Blair but ‘Piety’ Blair.

Michael Moorcock
Bastrop, Texas

Joan who?

W.S. Milne (Letters, 16 November) quite rightly points out that Charles Péguy’s writings about Joan of Arc had ‘effects’ in the years around 1900. I hadn’t meant to ignore those, but in suggesting that Joan was ‘little known in France until the First World War’, I was reflecting on early 20th-century survey evidence noted by Eugen Weber in Peasants into Frenchmen (1977), which showed that few national conscripts had then heard of Joan. Péguy’s public would have been another matter.

J.L. Nelson
King’s College London

Tanked up

Peter Wollen (LRB, 16 November) does Boris Yeltsin less than justice when he describes him ‘riding on a tank to suppress Parliamentary opposition’. Two years earlier, as Mayor of Moscow, Yeltsin clambered onto a tank to dissuade soldiers from firing on the crowd protesting against the coup which sought to restore Soviet dictatorship. His action may well have helped to save Mikhail Gorbachev’s life – it certainly went a long way to preserving his reform programme, and keeping Russia on the road towards a form of democracy which bears comparison with, say, Florida.

Jim Forrest
Fareham, Hampshire

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.