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. 24 No. 20 · 17 October 2002

Search by issue:

The Fat, the Old and the Ugly

Jeremy Waldron writes (LRB, 19 September): ‘we value those features of an economic system that are sensitive to effort, and – more important – we deplore those features that guarantee success for some at the expense of systematic insensitivity to the choices and efforts made by others.’ True enough, but decisions based on true merit and ‘systematic insensitivity’ are not the only options. The unexamined word here is ‘systematic’.

Suppose an employer faced with two applicants, Ernest and Jack, chooses Ernest because he happens to love that name, though Jack is actually far better qualified. Has equality of opportunity been denied? No, because both applicants equally face a world in which merit coexists with arbitrary preference as a criterion of selection: Jack had as good a chance, going in, of meeting an employer partial to Jacks. The value of equality of opportunity gets most of its practical force from its opposition to systematic discrimination. If Jack were black, would equality of opportunity have been denied? No – not if we can be sure that race did not motivate the employer. But how can we be sure? We can only do the best we can to come to an accurate judgment of the case. Systematic bias may be revealed by patterns of employment, which governments may take steps to remedy. The remedy is not to reach perfect fairness for every individual, but to eliminate systematic bias against certain groups.

A society where discrimination is merely a matter of random personal inclinations amounts, in fact, to a society with equality of opportunity. A perfectly fair society is something beyond that. How far should we go in hunting down discrimination, not only against blacks and women but against the fat, the old and the ugly? To pursue positive equality beyond the elimination of egregious systematic discrimination produces what has become known as political correctness.

David Bishop
Cambridge, Massachusetts

The Trouble with Smallpox

Hugh Pennington points out (LRB, 5 September) that ‘nobody reads books about the diagnosis of smallpox any more. I bought my copy of Ricketts from an antiquarian bookseller.’ Even leading medical textbooks nowadays fail to discuss the clinical recognition of smallpox in any detail. Fields Virology tells us that ‘there is little point in delineating the clinical features of this now-extinct disease.’ Most rashes do not appear on the palms and soles: the smallpox rash does. Pennington describes a smallpox laboratory accident in 1973, and notes that Dr MacKenzie ‘was puzzled by the blister-like lesion on her hand’, which may ultimately have led to the diagnosis. However, in Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, another leading textbook, smallpox is no longer listed among the few human rashes affecting the palms and soles.

Edward Tabor
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville, Maryland

Carbon Wars

Anatol Lieven makes the point that ‘the single most important consideration’ in the push for war on Iraq is ‘guaranteed and unrestricted access to cheap oil’ (LRB, 3 October). In the context of the Bush regime’s energy policies, which have been integral to its foreign policies, the war needs to be considered in terms not only of its aims but also of the consequences of consuming the oil.

The probable ratification of Kyoto despite US hostility illustrates the fault-line Lieven analyses. The alienation of the US from its German ally may superficially owe much to the injudicious remarks of Schröder and his colleagues, but their electorate’s concerns about the impending war and about climate change as a result of the recent flooding suggest a more fundamental political divergence. And at the other end of the scale, the micro-nation of Tuvalu has announced that it will have to abandon its islands within a generation because of rising sea levels.

One needn’t ask how the US would react if, somehow, the roles were reversed and its vital interests, or even existence, were threatened by policies pursued by, say, Tuvalu. As it is, it seems bent on behaving like a twenty-stone chain-smoker in a stalled and crowded elevator.

Jonathan Sinclair-Wilson
Earthscan, London N1

Quite Normal

John Sturrock, in his review of The Keys of Egypt (LRB, 19 September), remarks that its authors ‘sink to a new low in asinine anglicisation by turning the Ecole Normale into the Normal School’. Whether this is quite such a low is debatable, but it is very far from new. A proposal for a teacher-training Normal School administrating non-denominational religious instruction was central to the Education Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in February 1839. Given Whig francophilia in general, and Russell’s own familiarity with France, the name has an obvious origin. Russell abandoned the proposal on 4 June in response to clerical agitation, proof perhaps of the endurance of the ancien regime on at least one side of the Channel. James Kay-Shuttleworth founded a Normal School at Kneller Hall, Twickenham in 1849; Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, was principal until its closure in 1855.

S.A. Skinner
Balliol College, Oxford

Elect the judges

Stephen Sedley (LRB, 19 September) is only partly right to attribute the lack of an ethnically diverse judiciary ‘not to fundamental failings in the judicial appointments process … but to deep-seated discrimination within the legal profession’. In fact, it’s almost certainly both. At the Employment Tribunals, where I practise, one regularly confronts black and Asian lawyers, but to appear before a non-white tribunal chairman is still very unusual.

The solution is to provide for a proportion of the lowest tiers of the full-time judiciary to be elected. To be a candidate for election, one would have to be a fully qualified lawyer of, say, seven years’ standing, to have practised for at least some of that time, and perhaps to be verified by the Lord Chancellor’s Department as worthy of judicial office. But after that one could put oneself up for election. In areas with large populations of ethnic minorities there would soon be a fairer proportion of black and Asian members of the judiciary.

Chris Purnell
Orpington, Kent

Implosion in the Glens

David Walker (Letters, 19 September) suggests that Scotland is more spendthrift Hyde than canny Jekyll, and can't, therefore, transform itself into a bourgeois region like Baden-Württemberg in a oner. I agree, but I think that the purpose of devolution was to create a framework within which new policy priorities could be made. This need not mean more cash but ought to require efficient and rational appraisal of alternative expenditure patterns. Six billion pounds are blown annually on cars and roads. Best practice in transport need not cost more: indeed, the pressure to economise may accelerate environmental reform rather than requiring the rattling of a begging-bowl outside 11 Downing Street.

Christopher Harvie
Tübingen, Germany


It is hard to understand why my suggestion that the dropping of two atomic bombs was not the only way of ending the Pacific war in 1945 causes such indignation (Letters, 19 September). A wide range of military figures have taken that view. Field Marshal Montgomery, in The History of Warfare, has this to say: ‘In my view it was unnecessary to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945 and I cannot think that it was right to do so … The dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining moral standards of modern war.’ General Eisenhower was just as clear: ‘Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face. It was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’

Bruce Kent
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
London N7

At This Late Hour

In his review of Carol Peaker’s Penguin Modern Painters (LRB, 8 August), Peter Campbell quotes a letter from Kenneth Clark to Eunice Frost at Penguin Books. In that letter, Clark also said: ‘Whether there is really any point in introducing the people of South Shields, at this late hour, to Matisse and Picasso I am far from certain. It seems to me that these painters were the product of a highly sophisticated society and can never be genuinely popular, although people may buy them out of snobbishness and curiosity.’ Despite the attitude he reveals here, Clark worked at Penguin with editors, including Eunice Frost, who believed strongly in taking art to wider audiences. Their dedication to education and the dissemination of art (Penguin’s chief editor helped found the ‘art for the people’ scheme in the 1930s) was as important to the Modern Painters enterprise as Clark’s belief that the health of art lay in modest private patronage.

Nicholas Joicey
Washington DC

Water on the Brain

Edmond Wright (Letters, 3 October) is surely mistaken about the water/H2O analogy for the mind/brain distinction. He seems to say that ‘water’ is associated with the properties of water, which we phenomenally experience, whereas ‘H2O’ is the physical description of water: ‘we cannot identify H2O with the being of water.’ But it is clear that water and H2O are co-referring expressions. You cannot make the true statement ‘water is wet’ into a falsehood by substituting the term ‘H2O’ for ‘water’. Try a similar thing with ‘mind’ and ‘brain’ and it’s obvious that the two terms do not co-refer: we don’t speak of finding ‘peace of brain’. The properties of water are all physical properties, and explained by the fact that water is made up of two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. In the case of phenomenal experience, a physical object, the brain, is in some sense involved, but experience appears to have properties that just don’t seem physical. As Jerry Fodor pointed out in his original article (LRB, 5 September), a pain is not the same sort of thing as a rock. Philosophy of mind has somehow to find a way to reconcile the existence of both in a material world.

Graham Hamilton

As a Lifelong Member of the SWP . . .

What Perry Anderson misses (LRB, 3 October) is a most surprising admission by Eric Hobsbawm. Having read his books and heard him speak over many decades I knew that Hobsbawm remained a Communist Party member and assumed, as a lifelong member of the SWP, that he must do some of the things that I did, and do. Namely, go to branch meetings, relate to strikes by visiting picket lines and sell a socialist paper. However, it seems he did none of this, not just after 1956 but before as well. Indeed he manages to get the date when the Daily Worker changed its name to the Morning Star wrong by ten years – 1956 for 1966 – so detached was he from selling the daily paper of the Party of which he was a member.

This explains, on the one hand, how Hobsbawm had the time to write such marvellous socialist history. It also explains how he came to be so closely associated with the anti-socialist politics of Marxism Today.

Keith Flett
London N17

Back to Square One

The illustration of the chessboard on the cover of the 19 September issue includes a black square in the right-hand corner of the board. The first rule of chess is that the board is to be positioned so that a white square is in the right-hand corner. To fail to follow this rule is to do violence to the positions of the king and queen.

James Gollata
Miller Memorial Library
University of Wisconsin-Richland

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.