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. 28 No. 1 · 5 January 2006

Search by issue:

A Question of Sources

As the biographer of Archibald Clark Kerr, the British ambassador to China from 1937 to 1942, I was disappointed to see that Jung Chang and Jon Halliday repeat in Mao: The Untold Story the allegation that Clark Kerr was a Soviet agent. Had this been argued out, and evidence produced, then I would at least have had something to consider. However, nothing of the sort is done. Indeed, the only relevant text referenced is my own biography of Clark Kerr in which I took considerable pains to dismiss this unfair allegation. What is the point of their bald citation of a text that expressly negates the point they try to make?

If this is symptomatic of their overall approach, then I am not surprised that they should find themselves under attack from Andrew Nathan (LRB, 17 November 2005). The issue is not Mao’s character and deeds but the ethics of biography.

Donald Gillies
University of Strathclyde

Navy Requirements

Writing about Nelson, Isaac Land says that ‘the navy did not require its captains to conduct a census of national origins’ (LRB, 1 December 2005). Captains in Nelson’s day were required, however, to keep a muster book that listed an extraordinary amount of detail about each crew member. ‘Place and country where born’ is one of its many column headings, along with, among other things, the cost of a sailor’s tobacco and of treatment for his venereal diseases, which would then be set off against his pay.

Paul Cheshire
Bath

Why Peretz?

I was happy to see Ilan Pappe begin his article on Amir Peretz (LRB, 15 December 2005) with a quotation from my interview with the new leader of the Israeli Labour Party. But there was little else in the piece that I agree with.

Pappe claims that as leader of Israel’s national trade union congress, the Histadrut, Peretz

did nothing to limit the organisation’s extensive involvement in the occupation: in areas directly or indirectly controlled by Israel, the Histadrut granted the settlers union rights while denying them to Palestinians; as for Palestinian workers in industrial plants within the border zones … it ignored their situation entirely despite their having no basic human or workers’ rights.

He completely ignores the 1995 co-operation framework agreements reached between Peretz and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU). Those agreements, which followed the Oslo Accords, have done much to create friendship and trust between the two countries’ trade unions, and to give some hope to Palestinian workers. The Histadrut has already transferred several million dollars in dues collected from Palestinian workers to the accounts of the PGFTU. In April this year, at a meeting in Brussels brokered by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), to which both the PGFTU and the Histadrut belong, Peretz and his Palestinian counterpart

agreed to move forward quickly on finalising a joint co-operation agreement between the two organisations. Key issues for the agreement include access for Palestinian workers to employment in Israel, relief funds for Palestinian workers and their families, action to prevent and resolve cases of exploitation of Palestinian workers, implementation of a March 1995 Co-operation Framework, and perspectives for future co-operation between the two organisations.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Peretz has been fighting for more than twenty years for an independent Palestinian state and for Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands.

Pappe says that if Peretz were to come to power, the best the Palestinians could expect would be the Geneva Accord. These agreements are pretty close to the best that could be achieved when reasonable Palestinians and Israelis sit down and try to work out an agreement. If Pappe thinks they don’t go far enough in securing justice for the Palestinians, he should bring that up with the Palestinians who signed them.

Pappe is dismissive of Peretz’s chances of being Israel’s next prime minister. He bases his conclusions on public opinion polls. Only a few weeks ago, polls showed Shimon Peres easily winning the Labour Party primaries, and polls several months ago showed Peretz coming last among the various candidates for the Labour Party leadership. Polls in Israel are almost always wrong, and consistently underestimate the strength of Peretz. Pappe will also be aware that all new parties of the Israeli political centre – parties headed by media superstars like David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Ezer Weizman and so on – turn out to be a flash in the pan. This will almost certainly be the fate of Ariel Sharon’s Kadima, a new party whose two leaders have a combined age of over 160.

Eric Lee
London N3

The Royal Pus

I wish Hugh Pennington (LRB, 15 December 2005) had told us a bit more about the presumably short-lived prophylactic concocted by Sir Almroth Wright at St Mary’s Hospital and known as the Anti-Catarrh (Public Schools) Vaccine. I don’t know what the force of those brackets is around the words ‘Public Schools’, but on the face of it it seems extraordinary that there should either once have been a form of catarrh that blocked the passages only of those children who had been packed off to be privately educated, or that the rather grand Sir Almroth had stipulated that public school pupils alone should be entitled to get the jab, if jab it was. One way or another, this sounds like a very class-conscious medicinal breakthrough, with a touch of god-save-the-king thrown in, what with the rumour that one of the ingredients that had been stirred into the laboratory mix had ‘been grown from pus taken from George V’s chest’. As rumours go, you might have supposed that this one would have proved counter-productive. Being touched for the King’s Evil would have been one thing, being injected with the royal pus quite another.

Ivor Potts
Sherborne

Protest Dance Pop

Adam Mars-Jones describes himself as ‘someone who hates drum machines’ (LRB, 15 December 2005). This doesn’t augur well for a review much taken up with the writer’s thoughts on ‘protest dance pop’ because inevitably he gives the dance part of this hybrid scant regard – ditto black music, so often synonymous with dance. In his version of the 1960s there’s no Curtis Mayfield or Sly Stone or the myriad of black artists who made musical protests. Of course they’re easily excluded when the definition of protest is ‘rather precarious emulsions of melody and slogan’. This conjures up the bland and tentative, and among others Edwin Starr’s ‘War’ won’t be fitting in there; nor will Jimi Hendrix’s feedback-heavy ‘Star Spangled Banner’ or his later ‘Machine Gun’.

This Band of Gypsies number is more or less a blues, which brings me to the most dispiriting part of the review, what Mars-Jones refers to as ‘the one-size-fits-all dungarees of the twelve-bar blues’. Can this folksy garment do justice to a form in which you’ll find the religious sublime (Blind Willie Johnson), the spooky (Elmore James), and the downright witty (Memphis Minnie). She by the way (the first woman to play electric guitar) was fond of glitzy split skirts and would have been puzzled by Mars-Jones’s demeaning metaphor; as would Robert Johnson in his dandy three-piece suits.

In the 1920s Memphis Minnie recorded her protest-cum-lament about the flooding of the Mississippi Delta ‘When the Levee Breaks’. It was reworked in the early 1970s by Led Zeppelin and has become one of the most sampled tracks in hip hop. But samples are maybe a bit too close to drum machines for Mars-Jones and it’s no surprise that later eras in black music are also absent from his potted history of ‘protest dance pop’. No Grandmaster Flash or Public Enemy or more recently Kanye West who’s made his feelings clear about the US administration’s response to the New Orleans flood.

Paul Tickell
London W9

Adam Mars-Jones thinks there weren’t many protest songs in the 1980s; but then he also doesn’t like drum machines. Songs isn’t exactly the word, but in warehouses and fields all over Britain there were people dancing to what might qualify as a variety of what he quaintly calls ‘protest dance pop’. It certainly felt like we were protesting against something, or involved in some kind of gentle revolution. But then we were all nutted on E, so maybe we were just kidding ourselves. And the hideous spectacle of 1990s so-called ‘superclubs’, the long hangover of indie guitar music, and the political disappointments of the past decade would seem to suggest that we were.

Jim Jenkins
Cardiff

Yes, it was

Matthew Kelly says that Ireland in the 19th century was ‘not a fully integrated part of the Union’ (LRB, 1 December 2005). The Act of Union came into effect in 1801, and Ireland then sent MPs to Westminster, though it soon became clear that they were never going to achieve their political goals there. There was no legal ambiguity as to Ireland’s status within the Union, and Irish nationalists had no doubt as to the extent to which their affairs were run by a British administration in which they had no confidence; hence their determination to break the Union.

Eoin Dillon
Dublin

Homage to Benjamin Banneker

Nicholas Guyatt describes Washington DC as ‘a backdrop throughout the 19th century’ which, ‘only after Congress dusted off L’Enfant’s plans in 1902 … attained its current soulless majesty’ (LRB, 17 November 2005). L’Enfant had absconded to Paris more than a century earlier following his angry resignation as planner in chief. The real hero is Benjamin Banneker, the African-American mathematician who worked with L’Enfant and whose photographic memory reproduced those plans in detail.

Leonard Benardo
Brooklyn, New York

Backed by Gold

Jenny Turner wonders about the origins of Ayn Rand’s name (LRB, 1 December 2005). ‘Ayn’ is the Hebrew letter that represents excellence; as for ‘Rand’, the South African currency was backed fully by gold and Rand was a firm believer in the gold standard as essential to the survival of capitalism.

Richard Cummings
Bridgehampton, New York

Plucked

Peter Campbell twice quotes Samuel Palmer as saying that Linnell ‘plucked him from the pit of modernity’ (LRB, 17 November 2005). What Palmer said was that he had been plucked from ‘the pit of modern art’, which is more caustic and to the point.

Gillian Nelson
Inverness

Help!

Would anyone who lived in Paris between 1940 and 1944 and knew members of the American community there please be so kind as to contact me? I am doing research on the Americans who chose to remain in Paris under the Nazi occupation – whether they collaborated, joined the Resistance or, like most other Parisians, bided their time until liberation.

Charles Glass
PO Box 8308

I am preparing an edition of Ian Hamilton’s collected poems and would be very grateful to hear from anyone who is in possession of any relevant material: manuscript or typescript poems or drafts of poems, letters referring to poems etc.

Alan Jenkins
c/o Times Literary Supplement, London E98 1BS

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.