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. 27 No. 8 · 21 April 2005

Search by issue:

Missed Catcher

In his review of David Means’s The Secret Goldfish, James Wood considers a story written in the second-person present and asks himself if there is ‘an example in literature of a success in this mode’ (LRB, 17 March). Success is a slippery concept, but Michel Butor’s La Modification (which uses the formal ‘vous’) and Georges Perec’s Un homme qui dort (which uses the informal ‘tu’) come to mind as pretty solid attempts. Wood later discusses Means’s influences, hearing echoes of Flannery O’Connor and Stephen Crane. It is strange that he does not mention J.D. Salinger, to whom the title of the collection is clearly a tribute. On the first page of The Catcher in the Rye Holden Caulfield says that his brother D.B. ‘wrote this terrific book of short stories, The Secret Goldfish, in case you never heard of him’. ‘The Secret Goldfish’ is not a re-creation of D.B.’s story (‘about this little kid that wouldn’t let anyone look at his goldfish because he’d bought it with his own money’); but it is Salingerian in its misdirection, its quietly menacing atmosphere, and its superb portrayal of children’s sensibilities and familial conflicts.

Martin Schifino
London SE2

Say no to pokies

Ross McKibbin is right to say that the Gambling Bill deals primarily with gaming and not with betting, but he doesn’t explain why (LRB, 3 March). The reason, I believe, is that betting is changing radically in a way that will severely restrict the revenue the government can extract from it. The catalyst for this change is the internet. Few services are better suited to virtual delivery than betting: the only things that change hands are money and information and both can be easily exchanged electronically. Better still, the traditional bookmaker (and his margin) can be bypassed. That is why betting exchanges will continue to grow at the expense of high street bookmakers, with their high overheads and fat profit margins. Virtual exchanges can operate from any jurisdiction, so it is hard to tax them too aggressively in case they move offshore. By encouraging super casinos (although only one is now planned, rather than the eight originally envisaged), the government was hoping to keep as big a portion as possible of the gambling pound where it could be readily taxed. Its proposed legislation is a near-naked attempt at revenue protection: talk of ‘modernisation’ merely dresses it up.

Oliver Streets
Frant, Kent

What is Labour for?

In his review of Stephen Pollard’s biography of David Blunkett, John Lanchester presents Blunkett as having moved from the ‘loony left’ of his Sheffield Council days to a right-wing authoritarian position (LRB, 31 March). Pollard’s book, however, provides evidence of continuities in Blunkett’s thinking and behaviour. Pollard shows – and I remember – that as a mature student at Sheffield University Blunkett displayed a mixture of contempt and amusement at the posturing of pseudo-revolutionaries, full of scorn for the Labour Party. When he became leader of Sheffield Council the Red Flag was hoisted over the town hall and Sheffield declared a ‘nuclear free zone’, but these were gestures that indulged the left and harmed no one. The real business was pushing through the compromises needed under Thatcher to get away with as much egalitarian reform as possible.

Bernard Crick
Edinburgh

Gone Bad

George Orwell’s 1939 novel, Coming Up for Air, is in part a parody and critique of In Search of England, the stereotyped and hugely popular travel book which, as Kitty Hauser writes, made H.V. Morton’s name and fortune between the wars (LRB, 17 March). Bowling, a fat, vulgar commercial traveller (the narrator of his own story, uniquely in Orwell’s fiction), drives off, like Morton, in his two-seater in search of ‘England’. For Bowling this is the small country town of Lower Binfield (Morton’s ideal village was Binsted). He finds everything horribly spoiled: all the comforting things he remembers have gone bad and the illusion of a traditional, largely rural England, which Morton later promoted for the wartime Ministry of Information, is shattered. Bowling’s reaction seems to have been much like Morton’s: a pathological hatred of the ‘spoilt lower classes’ and the ‘flabby’, pansy, sandal-wearing socialists who have desecrated his boyhood haunts. He stops short of Morton’s loathing of Jews and negroes; but that reminds us that Bowling is, in many respects, speaking for Orwell himself.

Christopher Small
Isle of Lismore, Argyll

Obstacles to Seeking Asylum

Matt Cavanagh writes that the majority of ‘abusers’ of the asylum system are trying ‘to buy some breathing space to find illegal work’, and that ‘there must be some kind of trade-off between ensuring genuine refugees are given protection, and eliminating abuse of the system’ (Letters, 31 March). Most failed asylum-seekers are, in fact, people in need of protection, but who do not meet the stringent requirements of the UN Convention on Refugees. Many of my clients come into this category: the 21-year-old Roma woman, for instance, who claimed asylum because the systematic discrimination she suffered in her own country left her unemployed, marginalised and frightened to walk down the street; or the woman from Sierra Leone who watched her four-year-old daughter bleed to death after her hands had been chopped off, and wanted to work to take her mind off the memory. The former was refused asylum because the discrimination she had suffered did not reach the level of persecution required by the Convention, and the latter because the civil war in Sierra Leone was over, and there was no future risk from which she needed protection. Neither woman was a refugee according to the UK’s interpretation of the Convention, but they weren’t straightforward economic migrants either. One’s confidence in the asylum system is not increased when a former government adviser oversimplifies the issues involved in the way that Cavanagh does.

There cannot be ‘some kind of trade-off’: this is a matter of Britain’s legal obligations. As government policy stands – with off-shore controls preventing people from reaching the UK, and officials slapping visa requirements on nationals as soon as it becomes clear that large numbers will require protection (as in the cases of Colombia, Zimbabwe and Jamaica) – any trade-off is not favouring those Cavanagh calls ‘genuine refugees’. Next to nothing has been done to ensure that they are ‘given protection’. The government resettled only 60 of a promised 500 refugees in the first year of the Gateway Protection Scheme. It has ignored calls to fast-track those likely to be ‘genuine’ refugees and instead concentrated on increasing capacity to fast-track those it thinks unlikely to have well-founded claims. It has pumped money and effort into tweaking and tightening the appeal structure, rather than improving the shockingly bad standard of initial decisions.

Natasha Carver
Immigration Advisory Service, London SE1

Which 78 per cent?

Myron Kaplan claims that ‘Jordan … comprises 78 per cent of the land of Mandate Palestine’ (Letters, 31 March). The British government made no promises to Jewish groups about the eastern boundaries of the Jewish homeland. The boundaries were drawn at the Jordan River because Jewish claims in those areas were weak. Even when the Mandate was approved in 1922, it stated that the allocation of territories east of the Jordan would be ‘ultimately determined’ by the British. Later in 1922, the League of Nations approved a British memorandum concerning the organisation of the territories east of the Jordan as ‘Transjordan’. To say that Transjordan was ‘carved out’ of Palestine or is part of a promised Jewish homeland isn’t correct.

Alex Simpson
Dallas

The Two Totalitarianisms

Slavoj Žižek could have spared himself the curious argument that Communism’s authenticity is shown by the greater irrationality of its arrests and show trials, as compared with the Nazis’ concentration on dissidents and Jews (LRB, 17 March). In fact the Gestapo system was fuelled by a stream of denunciations for crimes such as disloyalty or hoarding, which attracted penalties ranging from indefinite detention to death. I am also puzzled by Žižek’s assertion that ‘dissident Communists’ had no National Socialist equivalent. One obvious example is Hitler’s early ally Otto Strasser, who was exiled in 1930 and spent the next fifteen years agitating for a more ‘socialist’ form of National Socialism. (He returned to Germany after the war and died in 1974.) The differences between Communism and National Socialism are clear enough to survive the admission of the odd awkward resemblance.

Phil Edwards
University of Manchester

Rose-Tinted

Paul Laity doesn’t consider the ideological underpinnings of Humphrey Jennings’s wartime documentaries (LRB, 3 March). They were, after all, made under the auspices of the Ministry of Information and intended as propaganda. Jennings’s representations of working-class popular culture and his rose-tinted nostalgia for a pre-industrial rural society take for granted certain ideological attitudes and assumptions. The films were not simply visual poetry. They nourished a backs-to-the-wall wartime spirit, and encouraged nostalgia for a stable hierarchical society in which everyone knew their place.

Marilyn Francis
Bath

Too Kind

Andrew Saint rightly describes the centre of Hampstead Garden Suburb as ‘limp’, but his suggestion that this ‘stemmed from failures of investment, possibly also of community size, not design’ is too kind (LRB, 31 March). The fault is that of Edwin Lutyens, who persuaded Henrietta Barnett to drop Raymond Unwin’s plan for a central square with shops and a market, presumably because these would detract from Lutyens’s own monolithic Free Church and St Jude’s, two of the most enervating buildings in North-West London.

Gerrard Roots
London NW4

Hitch a ride

Sean Wilsey’s piece on rats reminded me of a startling sight during my morning drive to work last month (LRB, 17 March). On a busy San Francisco Bay Area freeway, a rat came out of the median, crossed the high-occupancy-vehicle lane, and clambered up into the right rear wheel well of the black Acura 2.2CL sedan stopped in traffic in front of me. It hitched a ride for four or five miles, then disembarked and ran back across the high-occupancy-vehicle lane to the median.

Alan Bernheimer
Berkeley, California

Vote Prendergast

Christopher Prendergast (LRB, 17 March) might like to know that his father, Jim, polled 122 votes (8.5 per cent) in the Bell Street ward of St Marylebone in the 1959 borough elections. One of the successful Labour candidates was the Countess of Lucan, mother of the famous absconder.

Mike Killingworth
London W2

Gerard McBurney is right to point out that my father couldn’t have fallen on the non-existent escalator at Tufnell Park (Letters, 31 March). The name of the tube station was mistakenly inserted by the LRB’s editors; the episode in fact occurred at St John’s Wood.

Christopher Prendergast
University of Copenhagen

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.