In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling


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.

New York is no longer a city of five boroughs with a village at its centre. The latest report of the US Conference of Mayors describes it as a megacity, with the metropolitan area absorbing surrounding counties in New Jersey and New York State. This is a city with a population of 18 million and a GDP of $1 trillion, just a little lower than Spain’s. It’s the richest place on the planet. Its boundaries are hard to define. One result of New York’s growth is that Manhattan is becoming an enormous downtown: an island of hospitals, universities, malls (or mall-like developments), places of entertainment, offices – and homes for those who can afford to live there.

In Through the Children’s Gate, his recent book about New York, Adam Gopnik writes that since 11 September 2001 the city has become ‘tragic and fragile’, ‘the Venice of the new millennium’.* New York – or Manhattan, more precisely the subject of Gopnik’s book – has indeed become like Venice, but not because it’s fragile. It is more of a resort city than ever. This transformation occurred despite 9/11 – plans to make Manhattan more mall-like and visitor-friendly were drawn up years ago – and because of it too: the pace of change has picked up since then. The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, sometimes talks about the importance of tourism to New York as if tourists were more important to the city than its inhabitants, but when you consider that 44 million tourists visited the city last year – an increase of 25 per cent since 2001 – that isn’t so surprising.

The best chapter in Gopnik’s book is about the redevelopment of Times Square, once a peep-show alley, now the headquarters for the US’s main media companies and – still – the theatre. Similarly dramatic transformations are to be repeated in other parts of the city. Frank Gehry has designed an enormous complex of shops, a basketball stadium and apartments to be built over marshalling yards in Brooklyn. Many residents are against the Gehry construction, though it is not the development itself that is likely to kill the neighbourhood so much as the skyrocketing rents and house prices. The redevelopment of Harlem continues: Renzo Piano is to build a third Columbia University campus at the western end of 125th Street, close to the Hudson. And this is just the beginning.

Since Bloomberg became mayor in 2002, more than four thousand blocks in the five boroughs have been ‘re-zoned’, so that buildings in areas once protected for particular commerical and manufacturing uses can be converted into luxury or more affordable apartment buildings, or into more shops. The biggest private real-estate development in New York’s history, begun in the late 1990s, nears completion on Manhattan’s West Side: 13,000 people will live in Trump City when it’s finished. The Queens waterfront is another area that has been marked by the city authorities for residential improvement. How much construction there will be in Queens hasn’t yet been announced, though the waterfront is considerably bigger than the Trump City site. In the late 19th century, this quarter of Queens was the Steinway family fiefdom, its piano factory a mile to the east. The Steinways built houses for their workers close to the plant, less in an act of enlightened utopianism than an attempt to prevent the piano workers, most of whom were former German cabinetmakers, from going on strike. But the piano-makers’ union continued striking despite the better housing and the theme park the Steinways built for them on the north shore of Queens. ‘New York remains New York,’ one of the Steinways said, ‘and that means a city where democracy called by its true name is the rule of the mob … Heaven help those who by expressing republican sentiment may provoke the rage of the mob.’

The warehouses on the Queens waterfront and on the empty streets leading away from the East River will eventually be torn down and yet another real-estate company will publish brochures for apartments with views of Manhattan over the East River and the nearby shops. What is surprising is that these developments have taken so long. ‘New York City has become a metaphor for what looks like the last days of American civilisation,’ the New York Times movie critic wrote in 1975, while John Leonard, then the Times’s books editor, declared a couple of years later that the future was dead. These weren’t exceptional remarks: gloom was everywhere.

At the beginning of the 1960s, Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford, America’s most famous writers on urban issues, sensed a crisis on the horizon, but they didn’t foresee just how badly things would turn out. Nor did Robert Moses, who had been in charge of city planning since the 1920s, and whose mammoth housing projects and highways had ripped through old neighbourhoods; though he did say that if his plans for New York were abandoned, trouble was inevitable. None of them predicted what would happen when New York’s port, one of the city’s biggest employers, vanished. Nor did anyone consider the consequences of the enormous black migration from the South to northern cities. ‘The time to prepare for [the black migration] is now,’ one unusually far-sighted policy-maker, David Cohn, wrote in 1947. ‘But since we as a nation rarely act until catastrophe is upon us, it is likely we shall muddle along until it is too late.’

By the late 1960s the catastrophe had happened. ‘Repeated visits to Hunt’s Point in the South Bronx,’ a reporter said after visiting a ghetto, ‘uncover so much that is supposed not to be American in 1969 that the visitor wonders if he has suddenly entered a time machine and been transported back to frontier days … There are areas that have ceased to be part of New York.’ ‘The whole area is a big garbage dump,’ one resident said. ‘If we get rid of all the sanitation inspectors, building inspectors, police and teachers in this area we assure you this jungle could be no worse than it is at present.’ Few wrote about New York as a city close to extinction as dramatically as Norman Mailer. Appalled by the decay, violence, apathy and chaos of New York in the late 1960s, Mailer decided to run for mayor in 1969, the year he won a Pulitzer Prize for The Armies of the Night.

Much of what Mailer proposed in 1969 still seems desirable, however implausible. ‘Sweet Sundays’, for example, a day in every month when the electricity supply would be switched off. All forms of mechanical transportation would come to a halt, including lifts, and people wouldn’t be able to use their energy-sapping air-conditioners. There are vast numbers who turn on their air-conditioners on Memorial Day and leave them to run continuously until Labour Day, as if air-conditioning were just a seasonal matter without any relation to the weather outside. ‘Our own New York, the empire city,’ Mailer wrote,

is not too far from death. Our first problem is that no one in New York can answer with honesty the question: can New York be saved? … Part of the tragedy, part of the unbelievable oncoming demise of New York is that none of us can simply believe it. Now all our problems have the magnitude of the junkie problem – they are so coexistent with our life that New Yorkers do not try to solve but escape them.

Every ill of overproduction is visited on us. Our traffic, our smog, our intolerable, ugly housing are not just irritants – they’re symptoms of the profound disease of Western culture. We might just as well say 20th-century culture. There’s a sense of isolation and impotence. We have a miserable environment, and we can’t affect it. That inspires a demonic bitterness.

The shaping of the style of our lives is removed from us – we pay for the huge military adventures and social experiments so separated from our direct control that we do not even know where to begin to look to criticise the lack of our power to criticise. We wait for abstract impersonal powers to save us, we despise the abstractness of those powers, we loathe ourselves for our own apathy.

Mailer believed that the city had to become a state of its own. The derelict docks should be redeveloped, there should be more day-care centres, the police should live in the areas they patrolled, and each neighbourhood should be given the power to look after itself. But none of this could happen unless New York City ceded from the state. That, however, was considered too much anarchy as remedy for the anarchy that already existed: Mailer’s campaign came to nothing.

The new beginning, when it did finally arrive, bore little resemblance to what Mailer proposed. The city would be suburbanised. ‘The fact is,’ John Hightower, a former head of the Museum of Modern Art, said in 1977, when he was president of the South Street Seaport mall development, ‘shopping is the chief cultural activity of the United States.’ James Rouse, founder of the Rouse Company, which designed South Street Seaport in the 1960s and invented the first enclosed shopping malls, said malls were the future in the cities too; shopping, he thought, was the answer to urban decay. He had his eye on Fulton Fish Market, near the Manhattan foot of the Brooklyn Bridge, with its old Georgian houses, where on early weekday mornings wholesale fishmongers sold their catches in the shadow of expensive Wall Street real-estate. The Rouse Company, which had already converted Boston’s old market, Faneuil Hall (the model for Covent Garden’s redevelopment), said that ‘there is a yearning for small special places, to be “like in the old days”.’

We also learned that people love to eat – they come to a mall just for an eating experience. We are already moving in this direction in the suburban mall. The suburban mall is preserved as attractive, safe and comfortable, and dependable, with lots of greenery, lots of light, and entertainment. These things work. They work because a mall has a small management that controls the environment – one mall manager who understands that people come here to be comfortable. Our mission is to do downtown what has been done in the suburbs.

The older and more historical an area, the more attractive it is to mall developers, and therefore the more attractive to the crowds who, so it’s believed, yearn for other times.

‘In America, nostalgia for things is apt to set in before they go,’ Robert Hughes once remarked, and long-running nostalgia always seems to prefigure an eventual end. Few places in New York have inspired as much nostalgia as Fulton Fish Market, and laments about its imminent demise filled the newspapers every time it came under threat. A market had existed on Fulton Street since the early 19th century, and until the Brooklyn Bridge was opened, ferries between New York and Brooklyn left from nearby quays. The market, which wasn’t at the time exclusively a fish market, was surrounded by oyster bars and saloons catering for the passengers awaiting their rides across the East River. S.B. Miller, a 19th-century fishmonger famous in Fulton Street’s saloons, claimed to have eaten 170 varieties of fish, which is about fifty more than all the edible fish listed by Alan Davidson in his comprehensive North Atlantic Seafood.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Rudolph Giuliani, first as US attorney and then as mayor of New York, tried to have the market closed down. He had made his reputation by prosecuting organised crime, and insisted that the delivery men at Fulton Street were part of a racket. (The market had had strong associations with the Mob since the 1920s, when Joe Lanza, better known as Socks, head of the United Seafood Workers Union in the prewar years, controlled the piers round the southern tip of Manhattan.) Giuliani’s attempt to shut Fulton Street failed, just as all previous efforts had.

Property developers tried for years to close the market: they would cite mystery fires in the fishmongers’ halls, any number of them throughout the 20th century, in support of their efforts. In 1912, after one such fire, a reporter wrote the market’s obituary: ‘In these later, degenerate days, it has been merely a market, chiefly restored to buyers of large supplies for hotels, restaurants and steam boats, quite forgotten by the multitude, and not in the tide of general traffic. But memories must rise at the thought that even its name is to vanish.’ Departments of sanitation, development, and law enforcement: they all had a go. In 1959, the city’s commissioner of markets announced that Fulton Street, like every other market, would eventually move to a new facility in the South Bronx. Old outdoor markets, the commissioner said, were ‘outmoded’. ‘Don’t tell me that,’ one New Yorker said. ‘Don’t tell me a Van Gogh is outmoded.’ ‘Never mind that,’ said a fish wholesaler, ‘just tell the public to eat more mackerel.’ ‘They’re going to send us out there with the Indians and charge us more,’ Salvatore Bracco of ABC Fillets said. ‘This is prime real estate; that’s a swamp. We deserve compensation.’ A few years later another fishmonger compared himself to an Indian. ‘I feel like we are a tribe of Indians who were always ignored and left to do what we wanted. Now that the white man has found “oil” on our land, suddenly he has a treaty in his hand and a promise from the great white father.’

In the late 1980s, the Port Authority, with the support of Mayor Ed Koch, commissioned an expensive new market hall in Brooklyn, named Fishport. It was completed in 1989, but the fishmongers never turned up; they stayed on the East River. Then, in November 2005, Fulton Fish Market finally left Manhattan. The new fish market is at Hunt’s Point, where all the city’s food markets are housed, as the authorities planned back in 1959, in the same quarter of the Bronx that was said, in the year Mailer ran for mayor, to have ‘ceased to be a part of New York’.

I went to Fulton Fish Market the summer before it left Manhattan. The fish handlers drove fork-lift trucks (the wheelbarrow long gone), which slipped over the greasy cobbles and tarmac, darting about while the fish lay in cardboard or polystyrene boxes or on trestle tables; the paraphernalia of the market – the weights and scales, the cashiers’ tills, the tables and the stacks of boxes – all improvised, rigged together for the night.

There was once a strong political dimension to Fulton Street: Robert Kennedy launched his campaign to become senator there before dawn one day in 1964. ‘I have eight children and we eat fish every Friday. From now on, we’ll eat fish twice a week. That’s what we’re going to do for the fishing industry of New York.’ The market, Mob-associated though it was, had been an important New York Democratic Party symbol. Al Smith, the first working-class and Catholic governor of New York, and later governor and presidential candidate, worked as a barrow-boy at Fulton Street. It was a Republican mayor who eventually had the market closed.

The halls of the old market are to become part of the mall developed by the company that acquired James Rouse’s firm. Shops and restaurants – with views of the Brooklyn Bridge, the East River, and an elevated section of the FDR Drive – have replaced the fishmongers’ stalls. Nostalgia for the market has vanished. So has much of the resistance to the city authorities and their plans for New York. New Yorkers seem to have accepted that their city is now a wealthy megapolis with Manhattan at its core, famous for its eating experiences and the taste of other times.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

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.