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. 30 No. 3 · 7 February 2008

Search by issue:

Good Thinking

Jenny Diski’s review of On Ugliness does not mention ugliness as a political issue (LRB, 24 January). Ireland almost conducted a national campaign against it. Erskine Childers, minister of health in the late 1960s, was obsessed by the hypothesis that ugly people were more likely to develop mental illness. He ordered his department to investigate. Research money would be found, he said, no expense would be spared. Civil servants dissuaded him with some difficulty: no objective criteria could be established to define ugliness (or beauty); a scientific study would be impossible. He reluctantly dropped the idea and went on to be president of Ireland.

Augustus Young
Port Vendres, France

Why not let him in!

The (Jewish) editor of the Tagebuch who published the article ‘Lasst ihn heran!’ (‘Why not let him in!’) which struck the young Eric Hobsbawm as ‘suicidal’ was Leopold Schwarzschild, the most brilliant, but now largely forgotten German journalist of the interwar period (LRB, 24 January). Under his leadership the Tagebuch, which was founded by my great-grandfather Stefan Grossmann in 1920, provided the most substantive analyses of the last years of the Weimar Republic. When it returned as the Neue Tagebuch in Paris in July 1933, it quickly established itself as the leading exile publication and reported authoritatively and consistently on the preparations for war that had begun almost immediately after Hitler’s assumption of power. Indeed, Schwarzschild warned in the first issue of the Neue Tagebuch that ‘“war" was the only area in which the National Socialist movement was completely clear and unambiguous’ and therefore a ‘gradual, but unstoppable descent into some form of violent conflagration’ was inevitable.

He had recommended letting Hitler in in the wake of the regional elections in Prussia in April 1932, in which the NSDAP gained a 36.3 per cent share of the vote, not after the general election three months later as Hobsbawm claims. His argument, based on the premise that the basic democratic institutions of the republic were still intact (an important qualification), was that Hitler would be neutralised if he had to share responsibility for German economic and foreign policy. By the time the general election in the summer produced a 37.3 per cent share for the NSDAP, Franz von Papen was in the middle of dismantling the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic, having already, in breach of the constitution, dismissed the Prussian government. In those conditions any coalition with Hitler was unthinkable for Schwarzschild. In a sense, Hitler’s fortunes had already peaked, as demonstrated by his humiliation by Hindenburg in August and the electoral defeat suffered by the NSDAP in November 1932. As Schwarzschild argued in February 1933, Hitler was already beaten when victory was presented to him.

Andreas Wesemann
London E8

No, we weren’t

I assume that it was an editorial decision rather than the reviewer’s to title Steven Mithen’s review of Daniel Lord Smail’s On Deep History and the Brain ‘When We Were Nicer’ (LRB, 24 January). There are good reasons to suppose that our hunting and foraging ancestors were ‘egalitarian’ in the sense that would-be dominant self-aggrandisers were held in check by joking, teasing, enforced sharing, vigilant monitoring, counter-dominant coalitions, and occasional assassinations. But that didn’t mean they were ‘nice’. Presumably some were and some weren’t, then as now. The difference is that sedentism and a sustainable sufficiency of food (fish will do as well as grain) made possible, as Mithen says, a return to primate-like social structures in which the nasty could get away with self-aggrandisement by means that the environment of hunting and foraging lifeways precludes.

W.G. Runciman
Trinity College, Cambridge


Andrew O’Hagan begins his attack on video games with a series of skirmishes with what he suggests are some of the most popular games of recent months: Halo 3, Assassin’s Creed and Eternal Forces (LRB, 24 January). The first two titles will be instantly recognisable to almost anyone who plays video games. The last, which he describes as ‘a game set in New York in which the Antichrist attempts to achieve world hegemony’, will not. A check on, which aggregates review scores from across the best-known gaming magazines and websites, reveals that Eternal Forces has received an average mark of 38 out of 100. This hardly bears out O’Hagan’s claim that the game ‘has proved popular with a generation trained – one way or another – in the mental rigours of holy war’. As for Halo 3 and Assassin’s Creed, it would be hard for a fair-minded critic to deny that both have at least some artistic merit: Assassin’s Creed in particular provides fascinating evocations of Jerusalem, Acre and Damascus at the time of the Crusades and its treatment of the Knights Templar and hidden artefacts is superior to The Da Vinci Code’s at least – though that might not be saying much.

George Poles
London N16


Max Zweig is mistaken in describing Irian Jaya as an island: it is, rather, the western part of the island of New Guinea (Letters, 3 January). The territory was formerly called Netherlands New Guinea, becoming West New Guinea when the Dutch finally relinquished their last colony in the East Indies and then going under the Indonesian name Irian Jaya. In response to pressures for greater autonomy, it is now more usually referred to as Papua or West Papua.

Second, it was not ‘conquered by Indonesia’s generals when Nixon was in power’, a phrase that connotes a military invasion between 1969 and 1974 (like the one intended to subjugate East Timor in 1975). While there has been a long demographic, cultural, political and occasionally bloody military campaign to ensure its domination by Indonesia, West Papua was never actually conquered. The UN handed control of the territory to Indonesia in 1962 and, even though the takeover was given dubious legitimacy by a referendum in 1969, the process of (re-)absorption was a fait accompli well before Nixon’s accession to the presidency.

Michael Goldsmith
Hamilton, New Zealand

Apropos Alan Bennett

I learned from Alan Bennett’s Diary of the great Reg Park’s death last November (LRB, 3 January). Also, that Park was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s inspiration. Mine too! Transplanted from Park’s home county of Yorkshire to South Africa as a child in the late 1940s, I remember watching with awe and pride a performance of the new Mr Universe on stage at the Playhouse cinema in Durban in 1951, where such high-culture events were rare. A mighty six foot two and almost eighteen stone, he bench-pressed a 450 pound barbell, to the applause of a full house (that of the women muffled, through their practice of keeping on their white gloves, worn, always, to the Bioscope). Intrigued that a half-starved postwar England could produce such a behemoth (South African men believed they had the world copyright on size), I pestered my father for a set of weights. A nine-stone youth not quite up to it as second choice outside-half in the college rugby junior XV, I needed the body that weight training seemed to promise.

Spotting an ad in an English tabloid for a muscle-building course offered by a ‘Holborn Academy under the direction of Professor Walsh’, I sent off my 10s 6d postal order together with my shaming measurements, and waited for the Union Castle mailboat to deliver the professor’s assessment of my potential, plus the first month’s set of exercises. I was promised a 17-inch neck, and other startling measurements in proportion. The professor could not have been overjoyed with my progress, reported monthly along with the postal order; and it was with a mixture of shock and guilt that I read after some months that a bodybuilder called Walsh had thrown himself under the wheels of a train at Liverpool Street Station. My overdone letter of condolence to the academy in due course brought a reply, poorly typed on cheap notepaper with a crudely inked-in black border, claiming the ‘professor’ had specifically urged that I be kept at the exercises to achieve the ambitious goals promised. But the weights were now leaden in my hands, and soon abandoned. I never made the 2nd XV.

Sean Gallagher
London W14


It’s odd reading a favourable review of a novel in the same pages as one reviewed it, favourably, a quarter of a century earlier. Is The Book of Ebenezer Le Page (LRB, 24 January), as I suspect, the first to be double dipped in the LRB? If so, it shouldn’t be the last.

John Sutherland
London NW1

A Bristol Romance

Michael Wood suggests that Eça de Queirós may have found it possible to write during his years as Portuguese consul in Bristol because he had escaped Portugal’s velvety romance (LRB, 3 January). Bristol in the 1880s, despite mid-century slum clearance, was indeed a grim and grimy city. I don’t know for certain where the consulate was located, but can only assume that it lay near the docks, for commercial reasons, in which case its romance is likely to have been no more than notional: the connection with far-reaching maritime trade. But the author himself did not live in Bristol. His house was at what is now 38 Stoke Hill, in the hamlet of Stoke Bishop, four miles north of the city centre and well outside the city boundary. I live just around the corner. The area is separated from the sights and smells of the city by the height of Durdam Downs. The house itself is one of a group of four 18th-century houses, all showing some degree of Gothic influence, which look south-west across Old Sneed Park towards the Avon valley and the hills beyond. Otherwise the hamlet in the 1880s consisted of a church (constructed in 1860), a vicarage, a row of late 18th-century cottages, a substantial farm, and other more modest dwellings. The front of the house has six windows with Gothic arches all surmounted by striped metal awnings. This dominates a gently sloping garden with a sundial, an 18th-century glasshouse, and a black 4x4 in the driveway. The coach-house and other outbuildings are currently being renovated.

As if the house were not romantic enough, a short walk across fields would have brought Eça de Queirós to the Roman track known as Mariners’ Path, which led down between wooded slopes to the old Roman port of Abonae, now Sea Mills, where the Trym meets the Avon. An attempt had been made to revive the port in the early 1700s, and the ruined walls of the wet dock can still be seen. This was a favourite resort of landscape artists, and from the old port one could watch incoming vessels navigating the tricky curve in the river known as Hung Road. By the 1880s a single-track freight railway ran alongside the Avon here, with Sea Mills station opening to passengers in 1865. But even today, with the further addition of the A4 Portway thundering across the Trym, the scene is inescapably picturesque.

By contrast, I’m not aware that Hawthorne wrote much of interest during his period as US consul in Liverpool between 1853 and 1857. In 1856 the Hawthornes moved up the coast to Southport (my home town), where they took rooms overlooking the sea. Hawthorne’s journal of the period is full of wonderful details, but sadly he doesn’t record what he and Melville talked about when the latter visited for a few days in November 1856. If Moby-Dick had not been completed in 1851, I would have assumed it to be strongly influenced by this visit. You may indeed have wandered the open oceans in a whaler, but until you’ve visited a Lancashire resort out of season you’ve never truly looked into the void.

Philip Booth

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.