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. 29 No. 15 · 2 August 2007

Search by issue:

Hot or Cold Glue

Frank Kermode is right to complain that you need both hands to keep open the new edition of Housman’s letters (LRB, 5 July). ‘Yet there was a time when Oxford editions were a pleasure to use,’ he says. In the UK that was up to about 1970, when hot-melt glueing began to displace the cold glueing that had been used in industrial bookbinding. Cold glueing, which leaves a thin and almost invisible layer of water-based glue, allows the book to stay open by itself; hot-melt (a thicker, whiter layer of polymer glue) doesn’t. Cold glue seems to have disappeared from UK and North American book production, for reasons of economic rationalisation. It is still available, however, on the Continent and in the Far East. But this is evidently too far away for Oxford University Press.

Robin Kinross
London NW5

New ‘Iraq’, Old ‘Mesopotamia’

‘There is no sense that the British were at this stage thinking of establishing a state or a new political order,’ Charles Tripp writes of Mesopotamia during the First World War, ‘even though the chief political officer, Sir Percy Cox, tends to pop up after any substantial town is taken’ (LRB, 5 July). But Janet Wallach’s biography of Gertrude Bell, Desert Queen, makes clear that Bell, who wrote the 1919 handbook on the tribes of Iraq which is mentioned by Tripp, frequently discussed with Cox the new political order which should be put into place after the war. The manoeuvring to form a new ‘Iraq’ out of the old ‘Mesopotamia’ started almost as soon as the war itself.

Mary Fain
Gaylord, Michigan

Charles Tripp writes: In 1914 Gertrude Bell, far from thinking about how ‘Iraq’ might emerge from ‘Mesopotamia’, was in France with the Red Cross. She didn’t go to work at the Arab Bureau on Middle Eastern affairs in Cairo until late 1915, and arrived in Basra in March 1916. Bell and Cox were mainly concerned with the administration of the areas occupied by British forces and with schemes to subvert the Arab populations behind Ottoman lines. When T.E. Lawrence visited in April 1916 he persuaded Bell that Mesopotamia was ‘part of Arabia … indissolubly connected’ to the larger ‘Arab question’. But it wasn’t until after the fall of Baghdad in 1917 and, more particularly, after the 1918 Armistice that Bell and the others started to think seriously about turning the three occupied Ottoman provinces into a unitary state, later to be called Iraq.

For Real

I was left unsure whether John Lanchester thought that the banning of the computer game Manhunt 2 by the British Board of Film Classification was a good thing. It had, he writes, ‘probably headed off a moral panic’ (LRB, 19 July). Should we take this to mean that we’d all be better off if we didn’t have to live through so many moral panics? At the other end of his ‘Short Cuts’, when he reports on another computer game which has bullying in a school as its theme, Lanchester seems more hospitable to the prospect of a moral panic, since ‘there’s nothing funny or clever about the idea of bullying as the basis of a video game.’ But there’s nothing funny or clever about the unrestrained sadism involved in Manhunt 2, or the large number of similar games. The objection to moral panics, subsumed as it invariably is in a much wider objection to the baser elements in the media that adopt and foment them, is that they reduce serious behavioural issues to banner headlines. The issue where violent computer games are concerned is what connections there might be between virtual and real behaviour. What we’ve yet to hear in the current context is the argument long ago advanced in defence of pornography, that if you get your kicks in the virtual dimension you won’t be going out looking for them in the real one. I wonder if that’s an argument Lanchester would hold to.

Sean Haycock
Kidlington, Oxfordshire

Death in Burma

William Wootten’s piece on Alun Lewis prompts me to make public a conversation I had with the late Bernard Gutteridge, who served with Lewis in Burma and was a hundred yards away when Lewis shot himself in the latrines, the day before they were due to go into action (LRB, 5 July). In July 1979 I interviewed Gutteridge for a World Service programme about Second World War poetry. Beforehand he told me that Lewis had killed himself. He said that Lewis was being bullied by a senior officer. Gutteridge said I was only the second person he had told this, the first being John Lehmann. This part of our conversation was not recorded and I later wrote to Gutteridge to ask him to confirm what he had told me, but he didn’t reply.

Robert Hewison
London W3

Our Man

I was the spokesman for the UN special representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and did all the press briefings after the bombing of our headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August 2003. I think Perry Anderson is too hard on Vieira de Mello, and not hard enough on those in the UN responsible for sending more than five hundred staff members into the midst of a conflict they could do little to help (LRB, 10 May). Aside from the murderers themselves, the responsibility for the death of Sergio and 21 of his colleagues lies with the permanent member states of the Security Council and with Kofi Annan, all of whom were keen to make amends for the UN’s refusal to authorise the invasion of Iraq.

Many on Vieira de Mello’s staff in Baghdad were worried that he would be seen to be supporting the occupation because of his high-profile efforts to persuade prominent Iraqis to join the US-appointed Governing Council. I pointed out to him that there was particular concern that members of the council were being chosen on the basis of their ethnic group (the US hoped to win Shia support for the occupation by disenfranchising the Sunni Arabs). After the Governing Council was established, Sergio no longer had a meaningful role. Paul Bremer, the US proconsul, ignored him, and there wasn’t anything Sergio could do about it: no special representative in UN history had been given such a subservient mandate.

Salim Lone
Nairobi

Before Scott Malcomson makes poor James Traub delete any reference to the late Sergio Vieira de Mello’s second meeting with George Bush from future editions of his book, he might do a bit more fact-checking (Letters, 5 July). I was told about this meeting a few months after Vieira de Mello’s death by Shashi Tharoor, a novelist and UN hierarch. The occasion was a public discussion in Berlin in September 2003. Tharoor and I had vigorously debated the UN’s role and he had put up a robust defence of the institution. At the lunch that followed I asked him why Sergio, an intelligent man, had agreed to conduct the clean-up operation in Baghdad. Tharoor was blunt: ‘I’m afraid it was a combination of arm-twisting and flattery. Bush called him into the White House and appealed to his vanity. The poor man agreed to go.’ Traub is not the only source for the second meeting after all.

Tariq Ali
London N6

Masterwork

In his review of Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Robert Alter claims that Psalm 104 reads like the work of an individual ‘master’, and so undermines Karel van der Toorn’s contention that the Hebrew Bible was produced by a group of scribes rather than a series of gifted individuals (LRB, 19 July). There is an equally strong case for arguing that this psalm supports Toorn’s thesis. Most scholars now accept that it is based on an Egyptian hymn to the sun dating from the time of Akhenaten (1352-36 BCE). If an individual Hebrew scribe was involved, it was as compiler and redactor of a much older poem.

Frank Conley
Folkestone

Dead or Alive

Ian Mortimer says that ‘no one has yet demonstrated a fault’ in his argument for Edward II’s survival (Letters, 5 July). I had thought my review of his book The Perfect King had demonstrated a series of them. I am at a loss to understand why it is illegitimate to consider what possible motive Roger Mortimer had for faking Edward’s death, especially as I was responding to Ian Mortimer’s own suggestion that the aim was in some way to trap Edward III. Ian Mortimer persists in quoting only the second half of Lord Berkeley’s statement to Parliament in 1330. As I said in my review, when the sentence is quoted in full, by far the most natural reading of ‘he did not know about that death’ is that he did not know Edward had been murdered, not that he didn’t know he was dead. Ian Mortimer suggests that the body could not have been identified because its face would have been covered in the embalming process. But Adam Murimouth says that many abbots, priors, knights and burgesses of Bristol and Gloucester viewed the body. The whole point of this exercise was to prove that Edward II was dead. The embalming is irrelevant: the evidence Ian Mortimer himself cites for Richard II shows that it was perfectly possible to remove any cloth covering the face. The problem with the viewing of Edward II was that this proof was only available to a local audience, and there were soon rumours that Edward was still alive. But this does not mean they were true, any more than they were true in the case of Richard II. Mortimer urges anyone with doubts to read his ‘peer-refereed’ article on the subject in English Historical Review. I have an article coming out in EHR myself. I assume this means that the editor and referees think it is worth publishing. I do not assume everyone will agree with my conclusions.

David Carpenter
King’s College London

On the Extinction of Species

Hugh Pennington’s soothing words about the non-extinction of species do not square with my own experience of my three and a half acres in Tuscany (LRB, 10 May). In 1970, when I first came here, long green grass snakes slithered away as one walked the forest paths; the last one I saw in recent years was taking refuge in my greenhouse. On my terrace in the 1970s I would kill as many as six vipers in a season; there are none now. My dog was seldom without a hedgehog in his mouth (I would throw them over the cliff to save them from dying of fright); there are none now. Small wild orchids, mauve, terracotta and creamy white, appeared in drifts in late spring; there are none now. Beautiful large green lizards were plentiful; there are none now, although smaller brown ones have multiplied. I could go on, and on.

Victor Glasstone
Lucca

Mistake

In his piece about Saudi Arabia, Tariq Ali asserts that the ‘tombs of the Prophet and his wives’ are in Mecca (LRB, 19 July). The tomb of the Prophet and the graves of most of his wives are in Medina. Ali also says that bandar means ‘monkey’ in most South Asian languages, ignoring the fact that in one major South Asian language, Urdu, it has its Persian meaning of ‘port’ or ‘haven’.

Ali Rizvi
Bandar Seri Bagawan, Brunei

Near Miss

According to Scott Sherman, Hemingway saved Herbert Matthews from death in a rowing boat collision (LRB, 5 July). Who was the oarsman – Popeye?

John McGill
Quoyloo, Orkney

Hamlet Haiku

On reading Colin Burrow (LRB, 21 June):

Hamlet was not long
For this world – but six hundred
Pages in pb.

Peter Ghosh
Oxford

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.