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. 28 No. 13 · 6 July 2006

Search by issue:

Planet Wal-Mart

John Lanchester rightly concludes that we seem to have lost any way of discussing the public good that is not framed in terms of economics (LRB, 22 June). The Wal-Mart case also illustrates the paucity of discussion about the modern capitalist state’s social role. Wal-Mart is subsidised by a state that gives its workers welfare support, allowing the store to depress wages and increase profits; it is no accident that in the last twenty years (and not only in the US) the share of generated surplus that goes to owners and managers has risen and the share drawn by workers has fallen. While an absence of regulation and state activity can be useful to companies, they are quick to run to the state when things don’t go their way: think of US steelmakers or international agribusiness.

As Joel Bakan pointed out in The Corporation (2004), states should recognise that companies are incorporated through law for the wider social good. When they stop serving this, as Wal-Mart has done, the privileges of limited liability and corporate personality (which shield them from legal claims against their managers and shareholders) should be withdrawn. Ethical shopping may not be quite as hopeless as Lanchester suggests, but only state action can halt the rapacious extremes of contemporary capitalism. This is a politics that has always been missing from New Labour. The failure of political parties to return to the successful regulatory intervention of the late 19th century tells you more about the sources of their funding than the beliefs of their members. The supposed marginalisation of the state by globalisation is not an empirical fact, but a presentational victory by the private sector.

Christopher May
Lancaster University

John Lanchester says that ‘Wal-Mart is the biggest company in the world.’ Measured by market capitalisation (that is, market value, the usual method for judging company size), Wal-Mart comes eighth on the Financial Times Global 500 list, with a value of $196,859.90 million. The largest company is ExxonMobil at $371,631.30 million. The next six are General Electric, Microsoft, Citigroup, BP, Bank of America and Royal Dutch Shell. Wal-Mart’s turnover, however, is second only to ExxonMobil’s.

Alex Smith
Saffron Walden

John Lanchester says: ‘Google “should I shop at Wal-Mart?" and you will find a cool 12 million hits.’ If I Google ‘should I buy the London Review of Books?’ I get 19 million hits. This doesn’t have much to do with ethical-shopping dilemmas, but quite a lot to do with misunderstanding Google searches: if Lanchester had put his search terms in double quotation-marks, to find instances of that specific phrase rather than instances of each individual word within the phrase, he would have got 27 hits.

Jonathan Baines
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire


David Simpson writes that the value of the Twin Towers ‘as symbols of the national life has been multiplied by their destruction’, and alludes to Walter Benjamin’s claim that ‘a state of distraction in which we function ordinarily without noticing the buildings around us’ is also ‘a state of happiness, of not needing to pay attention to what we have made as something other than natural and routine’ (LRB, 25 May). I have been struck, watching American films made before 11 September 2001, by how regularly the camera pauses on the Twin Towers, making a point about American power and wealth. I hadn’t noticed this before, and that I have noticed it now says something about the way our responses to US potency were constructed by such iconography before as well as after 9/11. I have noticed too that the view of the Twin Towers from the Jersey shore has been dropped from the opening sequence of The Sopranos. Is this a gesture of respect or the result of a desire not to offend? Are we likely to see pre-9/11 movies doctored in order to remove the reminder, a disconcerting one for American audiences, that their nation’s global hegemony, literal and symbolic, is no longer perceived as either absolute or uncontested?

Stan Smith

Like San Michele

Tom Shippey asks if there was ‘ever a real medieval, or classical, library which was anything like’ Umberto Eco’s San Michele (LRB, 8 June). He plumps for the great library of Alexandria, but could have saved himself a journey: there was at least one collection in medieval Iberia whose holdings are said to have numbered more than 400,000. It is no more clear in this case than in those cited by Shippey what this number really means – rolls, or codices, or works, or what – but it certainly beats Alexandria’s 80,000, which Shippey cites as ‘certainly the pre-modern record’. In this library, that of al-Hakam II in Córdoba, all the volumes were in Arabic.

David Wasserstein
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

Do euphemisms help?

Ian Hacking’s description of the autistic child as an ‘alien’ is obviously meant to shock (LRB, 11 May). But to what end? There is nothing more ‘alien’ about children with autism than those with other severe developmental disabilities. However, because these children have difficulties with social communication and engagement, a profound state of alienation between such children and their parents and others can develop. This can be reversed once parents learn to understand the nature of the difficulty and adapt the way they communicate with the child. Although this does not magic away the disability, it is brought back into the realm of human meaning.

In fact, far from being applied only to ‘alien’ children, the notion of autism is currently overgeneralised. ‘Autism’ is now invoked to explain everything from intellectual distinction to artistic innovation to a football fan’s obsession with statistics. The seductive (but unproven) theory that autism is an extreme form of ‘male brain-ness’ doesn’t help in this respect. Maleness has, historically, always been associated with increased neurodevelopmental vulnerability of just about every kind. Why this should be so is undoubtedly of interest, but even though some aspects of personality (including those we associate vaguely with gender) appear to have something in common with traits associated with autism, it would be a mistake to equate them. ‘Sociability’, like any distributed trait, has a high and a low end: in a culture that privileges ‘sociability’ so highly it isn’t surprising that the ‘low’ end is scrutinised and even denigrated. States of pathology and disability, not least the notion of ‘madness’ itself, have often been used for spurious cultural ends, and it would be nice to avoid doing that in this instance.

Jonathan Green
University of Manchester


David A. Bell implies that I intended The Age of Conversation to be a comprehensive history of French salons in the 17th and 18th centuries (LRB, 11 May). Rather, as I state in the book, my purpose was to trace the development of sociabilité – the ‘art of living in society’. This concept was already considered to be what I describe as a ‘characteristic of French identity’ in the age of Montesquieu and Hume, and the salons were only one of its many expressions. I explore how the protagonists themselves reflected and wrote about their inherited codes of conduct; and how they perceived the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of their own public image. My account was informed by close analysis of historical sources; it was not, as Bell argues, a retrospective projection of an idealised vision of my own.

Bell accuses me of ignoring themes and problems that have preoccupied scholars, although I make explicit reference to this research in my 109-page bibliographic essay, which he does not appear to have read. He writes, for example, that my book resembles a ‘fable’ about France’s ‘proud noble caste’, and goes on to declare that ‘the French nobility was never a caste.’ It is true that I occasionally used, for want of a better term, the word ‘caste’, alternating it with the (equally imperfect) word ‘class’. But I also made clear in my bibliographic essay, that ‘if the word “class" is used, it is because social mobility existed within the society of the three orders, making the use of the word “caste" unsuitable for the nobility.’

He also suggests that I ignore the king’s constant bestowal of new titles, which had ‘the result that by 1789 a large majority of title-holders could not trace their noble ancestry back beyond 1600’, although I explicitly discuss ‘the process of integration between the nobility and the bourgeoisie’, citing, among others, Guy Chaussinand-Nogaret’s La Noblesse au XVIIIe siècle. Bell also claims that my ‘fable’ does not address the nobility’s ‘almost bourgeois dedication to profit’, although I refer to Daniel Dessert’s 1984 study, Argent, pouvoir et société au grand siècle, ‘which records the intense financial activity in the highest reaches of society … and points out a “congenital" contradiction between the financial organisation under the Ancien Régime and caste morality.’ Bell objects too that ‘the word “salon" was not used to describe gatherings like Madame de Rambouillet’s until 1794’; a point I made both in my introduction and in the entry on the salon in my bibliographic essay. Before criticising my use of sources, he should have read my footnotes. The description of Madame de Rambouillet’s Blue Room, which Bell deems ‘perilously close to the style of Mills and Boon’, is not in my own ‘narrative mode’. The passage paraphrases ‘Emile Magne’s scholarly imagination’, as I make clear both in the paragraph concerned and in an accompanying footnote.

Bell is entitled to criticise writers such as Hippolyte Taine, but Taine’s account of the Ancien Régime remains one of the most interesting and authoritative. To attribute to one of the great writers of the 19th century ‘prose worthy of The Scarlet Pimpernel’ is troubling. As for the unflattering comments he reserves for my own prose, I am somewhat consoled by his comments about Taine.

Benedetta Craveri


Doctor Who, old-style, according to Jenny Turner: ‘With 40 minutes a week to fill, in runs that were, in the early years, 42 weeks long’, it ‘quickly filled up with in-jokes, puns, bendy storylines, sci-fi metaphysics, futuristic design, references to B-movies, naughty nods to all manner of paraphernalia over the children’s heads’ (LRB, 22 June). Doctor Who, new-style: ‘The key to syndication is making stuff that is clever and dense enough to stand up to repetition … dense nets of plot and sub-plot, clever-clever intertextual jokes, characters and stories that arc with the elegance and complexity of drawings done with a Spirograph set.’ Either two completely different sets of pressures have had very much the same result, or Turner is missing a simpler explanation. The audience for Doctor Who – like the audience for Marvel comics or Star Trek – takes convoluted plotting, metaphysical bricolage and intertextual playfulness for granted: they’re defining characteristics of the genre.

Phil Edwards
University of Manchester


John Lanchester nominates Steve Waugh’s Out of My Comfort Zone as ‘the longest book written entirely in pen since A Suitable Boy’ (LRB, 8 June). Not so. This award should go to Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle (2003-2004), whose three pen-written volumes amount to more than 2600 printed pages and leave even Vikram Seth behind.

Karel Thein
Charles University, Prague

Quite So

‘All this rich evidence begs questions,’ Maya Jasanoff writes (LRB, 8 June). Evidence may invite questions, but only unwarranted assumptions may beg them.

Eric Brewer
Arlington, Virginia

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.