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. 2 · 26 January 2006

Search by issue:

Hefting

Frank Kermode’s review of Glenn Most’s Doubting Thomas (LRB, 5 January) reminded me, perhaps a little inconsequentially, of some curious circumstances relating to The Book of Mormon, and specifically to its validation. Every edition of this sacred text bears the statements of two sets of witnesses, a group of three followed by one of eight (making the surely significant number of eleven), that they had seen the gold plates from which the Book was ‘translated’. Many of these witnesses later apostacised from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but none ever retracted his testimony. Whereas the eight affirmed that they ‘did handle with our hands’, and had ‘hefted’ the plates (Mark Twain appreciated ‘hefted’), the three were apparently not hefters, and said that they had been vouchsafed their vision ‘by the power of God, and not of man’. One of the three confessed: ‘I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith.’ Hanging on, as I do, to my somewhat revisionist version of Christianity, I often think that it would have been very helpful if the Gospel writers had told us something like that.

Patrick Collinson
Trinity College, Cambridge

It wasn’t the CIA

Bruce Cumings (LRB, 15 December 2005) mentions the late Karl August Wittfogel’s part in a debate in the 1960 inaugural issues of the China Quarterly, of which I was then the editor. It was not, as Cumings states, Wittfogel’s ideas on Oriental despotism that were at issue but rather Benjamin Schwartz’s theory about the originality of Mao’s revolutionary strategy, as laid out in Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao. Wittfogel had long preached his dissenting views and the debate provided an opportunity for Schwartz to refute them for the first time in a public forum to which all China scholars had access, and which would also be accessible to the wider community. Wittfogel’s article attacked the theory as ‘the legend of Maoism’, and Schwartz then countered with a piece entitled ‘The Legend of “The Legend of Maoism"’.

Cumings reminds readers that secret moneys from the CIA (from the Farfield Foundation via the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the parent of the CQ, Encounter and many other magazines) provided part of the funding for the CQ – something I did not know until the public revelations of the late 1960s. His implication is that the CIA was behind the debate, and aimed to rehabilitate Wittfogel and his theories in the eyes of the academic community. I trust that this letter will dispel any such notion. The debate was my idea. It was not about Wittfogel’s theories, which had already received considerable academic scrutiny, but was designed to bring his allegations about Schwartz into the public arena so that they could be rebutted. I made sure that Schwartz, my former teacher, would welcome participating in such a debate before asking Wittfogel to submit his article.

Roderick MacFarquhar
Harvard University

Which 5 per cent?

David Runciman says ‘it has been estimated that only 5 per cent of the action’ in a football match ‘is exclusively subject to the differential skills of the players and the tactics of the team, the rest being shaped by such chance or inconsequential factors as the bounce of the ball’ (LRB, 5 January). We’ve all noticed how much of every game, even at the highest level, takes place in the middle third of the pitch, with the ball pinging between the teams and rarely under control, but even so, the comment is surprising. Such a claim surely depends on some parity of skill: if my Sunday league side turned out against Mourinho’s Chelsea, my guess is we’d be lucky to touch the ball (unless Joe Cole had had one of his big nights out). I’m intrigued how the estimate was made: it can’t be easy to work out what’s down to chance and what isn’t (what seems like a midfield mêlée could be so many potentially excellent passes skilfully intercepted, and so on).

Runciman’s remark did, however, make me reflect on the extent to which players and managers – and even most commentators – admit that chance plays a considerable part in the game, even if not a 95 per cent part. Pundits will often say that a penalty shoot-out is a lottery (especially if England has just lost), and reporters will describe the odd goal as a fluke (a winner off the shin of Chelsea’s Drogba against Arsenal in August springs to mind). But when did you last hear a coach admit, post-match to camera, that his team’s victory was even moderately jammy? Then again I gather it has been estimated that only 5 per cent of players and managers tell the absolute truth to the media.

Ed Langley
London N1

Blair v. Brown

Ross McKibbin is surely right that Gordon Brown shares the same policy universe as Tony Blair (LRB, 5 January), but he should not assume that Brown will become prime minister. His chances of reaching Number Ten are dwindling rapidly. In December, the Observer reported that Blair’s advisers were arguing that only Blair could defeat a David Cameron-led Conservative Party. In the first week in January, a Times reporter wrote that Number Ten was saying that Blair might give up in 2007 to give Brown two years as prime minister – but that Brown would then lose against Cameron, so Blair should stay. Blair himself told the Sun on 6 January 2005 that he would not be going in 2007, but would hand over power just before the next general election in 2009. He has broken so many promises that it would be foolish to believe this one.

Trevor Fisher
Stafford

Ross McKibbin asserts that in the present cabinet ‘there is only one former trade unionist’. Ian McCartney was a branch secretary and shop steward in the TGWU. Hilary Benn, Alan Johnson and Peter Hain have all been full-time national trade-union officials (not that Benn or Hain came up through the ranks), Johnson as a general secretary and member of the TUC General Council. John Prescott was a prominent activist in the National Union of Seamen, one of Harold Wilson’s ‘tightly knit group of political men’ during the 1966 national seamen’s strike. McKibbin is unsurprised that the cabinet pursues a right-wing agenda, given that it is drawn from the same narrow social group as the rest of the country’s political elite, but it would have been much more interesting if he had asked why, despite the varied backgrounds of the cabinet and the socialist beliefs that many in the cabinet and the Parliamentary Labour Party no doubt still hold, Labour follows its current track.

Seb Schmoller
Sheffield

Not So Chivalrous

Maurice Keen writes about Geoffroi de Charny’s position as an authority on chivalry (LRB, 15 December 2005). As Jonathan Sumption records in Trial by Fire, in late 1349 Geoffroi hatched a plot to retake Calais from the English. It turned on bribing Aimeric de Pavia, the commander of one of the gate towers, to allow Geoffroi and his accomplices to enter the city at night. Aimeric betrayed Geoffroi to Edward III, and the English were lying in wait; Geoffroi was badly wounded and captured in the fighting that ensued. He was held prisoner in England until he paid a substantial ransom for his freedom in July 1351. When Aimeric fell into his hands a year later Geoffroi took his revenge: he had Aimeric tortured with red-hot irons and dismembered with an axe in front of a large crowd in St Omer.

Peter Hoskins
Fontenille, France

Why Peretz?

Most Mizrahim, despite being Arabic in culture and language, would wince at Ilan Pappe’s description of them as ‘Arab Jews’ (LRB, 15 December 2005). Their ancient, now extinct communities predated the Arab Islamic conquest by a thousand years. The Mizrahim do not see themselves as Jewish Arabs, nor do they generally feel victimised by the ‘Ashkenazi’ Zionist establishment. This is not to deny that they are seriously affected by discrimination and poverty. But the Mizrahim, who make up half of the Jewish population, have also managed to reach the highest echelons of society in a single generation. Amir Peretz’s rise to power isn’t a flash in the pan: the foreign minister is a Tunisian Jew and the president an Iranian Jew. Pappe is wrong to suggest that a prerequisite for integration was the adoption of ‘strong anti-Arab positions’ by Mizrahi Jews. Some 600,000 Mizrahim came as penniless refugees from oppressive Arab states and would be the first to understand that under Pappe’s ‘one-state solution’ the Jews would revert to being a persecuted minority in an Arab country.

Lyn Julius
London SW5

Backed by Gold

Richard Cummings suggests that Ayn Rand chose her surname because of the link between the South African rand and the gold standard (Letters, 5 January). This is anachronistic: she chose her surname in 1926, a time when South Africa still had the pound as its currency. The rand was introduced in 1961 when South Africa became independent. As for ‘Ayn’, Jeff Britting’s biography indicates that it is a Finnish name.

Martin Rollo
London WC1

Go West

Michael Wood, commenting on Joan Didion’s Californian heritage, writes of ‘the harsh 19th-century crossing of the Rockies to get to the golden land on the other side’, and later describes Californians as ‘graduates of the Donner Pass’ (LRB, 5 January). At that time, you would have crossed the Rockies to find yourself in what was called the Great American Desert, and would have had to travel west nearly another thousand miles before crossing the Sierras at Donner Pass and dropping finally into California. Didion’s people apparently reached California via the Oregon Territory.

D.E. Steward
Princeton, New Jersey

Ghostwriter

Is Jenny Turner the first to mention Ghost clothes in the London Review (LRB, 5 January)? I got married in floppy white Ghost trousers and jacket and emailed a friend to say that my wedding outfit was made of wood. She thought I meant ‘wool’. In fact, most Ghost clothes are made of viscose, which is produced from wood pulp.

Siobhan Wall
Amsterdam

What I heard

I heard more than two hundred ‘I heards’ in Eliot Weinberger’s ‘What I Heard about Iraq in 2005’ (LRB, 5 January). I heard truthful statements from the Bush administration that were meant to sound false. I heard falsehoods and rumour-mongerings that were meant to sound true. I heard ‘I heards’ about the wickedness of America until I couldn’t stand the noise any longer, and then I called the LRB and cancelled my subscription.

Steve Cogan
New York

Like Alan Bennett …

Alan Bennett’s account of his experiences with mice prompts me to share with your readers a brief but true anecdote (LRB, 5 January). A couple of years ago we found ourselves providing living space and food to a colony of house mice. We bought a ‘humane’ trap and successfully removed four or five. The sixth mouse chewed a corner off the heavy-duty plastic box, ate the bait and left. Homebase duly refunded our money. We borrowed a metal trap from a friend. The next morning the trap was sprung, but empty, the bait gone. This happened three times, enough to persuade us that we had a supermouse. And so at last we deployed a Little Nipper, which performed as it should. Various morals are pointed. Had the supermouse possessed merely normal intelligence and agility it could have survived and bred. In the event it became an evolutionary dead end. Less philosophically, the moral of the story is: no one likes a smart arse.

Julian Rathbone
Thorney Hill, Dorset

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.