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. 16 · 14 August 2008

Search by issue:

Situation Vacant

Thomas Jones’s Short Cuts about employment opportunities with MI6 reminded me of a US government job posting I found recently on Craigslist, the online classifieds service (LRB, 17 July):

Pashto Interpreter (Cuba). Immediate search for Top Secret/SCI cleared (or eligible) linguist/interpreter who speaks the Pashto language for ongoing work in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Must be a United States citizen. Competetive [sic] compensation. Full benefits, travel and housing included. Please reply with an email immediately if you would like to apply.

So, MI6 advertises in the Economist and the CIA advertises on Craigslist; MI6 requires British citizenship, the CIA US citizenship; MI6 works ‘in an international environment’, the CIA handles all travel and housing; MI6 has ‘almost a family atmosphere’, the CIA is focused on ‘ongoing work’ (presumably as part of a team, which is very important to Americans). MI6 entices candidates with talk of integrity and national security, the CIA offers a good salary, exotic travel and benefits; MI6 is more direct, whereas the CIA will attract only respondents willing to answer shadowy requests. Nothing betrays that this CIA ad is a CIA ad, but it provides a wonderful opportunity for anyone expecting and accepting that America will be continually and indefinitely surveying, seizing, transferring, imprisoning and interrogating people. Who would not be keen to get involved in such work? Anyone interested should email

Joseph Szczekoski
Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania

To Chto Bylo On

Richard Pevear is right to say that Anthony Briggs’s translation of ‘to chto bylo on’ as ‘what was left of him’ does not accurately render Tolstoy’s description of the corpse of the old prince Bolkonsky (Letters, 19 June). But he is wrong to say that his own awkward ‘the women washed what had been he’ is the solution to the problem that this phrase presents for translators. Constance Garnett and Louise and Aylmer Maude solve it with ‘the women washed what had been the prince.’ Pevear has promoted his and Larissa Volokhonsky’s wooden translation of War and Peace by claiming that it offers an exquisite rendering of Tolstoy’s own tin ear. Isn’t it time to examine – rather than to swallow – this claim?

Janet Malcolm
New York

Obama Myopia

I was disappointed that Eliot Weinberger resorted to a tactic much employed by Obama supporters in the last weeks of the US Democratic primaries (LRB, 3 July). Weinberger writes:

Hardcore Clinton supporters saw the race in terms of gender, and blamed her loss on the sexism of the media and of the general public. But again, the lines of division were generational … women under 40 voted for Obama. Younger women in urban America are now better educated and earn more than younger men. They’re filling the executive positions and clearly do not believe that Clinton is their only hope of seeing a woman president.

While the statistics Weinberger quotes apply only to younger urban women in a particular section of the workforce, his argument does not: the reasoning of his paragraph implies that women under 40 voted for Obama because they have achieved parity with (if not superiority to) men in the workplace, and therefore do not see the election of a woman president as a significant achievement. Thus, the ‘hardcore’, elderly Clinton supporters who continue to see things in terms of gender and sexism, are represented as fundamentally out of date, using a feminist lens that is no longer relevant.

This is disappointing not least because it is so disingenuous. Even if we consider only the matter of wage parity, is Weinberger really unaware that last year women still earned only 80 per cent of what men earned in the United States, or that, since the Equal Pay Act of 1964, the gap has narrowed on average only half a penny a year, from a starting point of 59 per cent in 1963?

Jane Elliott
University of York

When the Floods Came

James Meek discusses Severn Trent’s seeming ignorance that the waterworks at Mythe, near Tewkesbury, were prone to flooding (LRB, 31 July). Around ten years after Mythe opened in 1870, the first edition of the Ordnance Survey County Series maps appeared, with flood plains marked on them as ‘Liable to flooding’. This warning was removed from OS maps after 1948, probably in order not to prejudice land values. If this had not happened the Environment Agency would not have had to make its own flood-plain maps and Severn Trent might have got the point before it was too late.

Colin Cohen
Barford St Michael, Oxfordshire

James Meek’s description of the privatisation of the water industry as a ‘chronicle of defeat for the notion of public service’ is spot on. It brought back some sour memories for me. It had started so well. After watching England win the World Cup on the Saturday, I started work on the Monday for one of the local authorities that ran its own sewage treatment works (there were more than a thousand of them at the time). After a few years I moved to another works whose effluent was so clean you could barely measure the pollution in it. Unfortunately, politicians must meddle, and when governments want to take powers away from local authorities they form bodies like the ten regional water authorities (quangos whose remit included water supply) set up in 1973, which in turn facilitated the privatisation of the industry in 1989. My demise had come earlier, in 1984. Malcolm McMurray, a retired Severn Trent manager, told Meek that ‘the Thatcher government deliberately starved the water industry of cash.’ That certainly reflects my experience: when I left my quango, the four posts immediately below mine were vacant.

Martin Ward

True Crime

In her review of Kate Summerscale’s The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, Bee Wilson states that Whicher arrived at Road Hill House ‘too late to view the evidence fresh’ (LRB, 19 June). In fact, he arrived too late to view much evidence at all; a considerable amount of it, including bloodstains on door jambs and a bloody female undergarment, had already been destroyed. The Wiltshire and Somerset police told Whicher nothing of these losses, so that he had to reason from false because incomplete premises. Wilson gives the impression that Whicher correctly solved the case, even though it ruined his career. A more critical reviewer would have noted, in Summerscale’s account, a fudging of the distinction between forensic truth and narrative truth. As Summerscale states, Whicher was a ‘reader’ of clues and character. Given a flawed text, he derived a flawed reading, and catalysed his own suspect’s development into a maker of fictions. Like all great fictions, Constance Kent’s was deeply felt to be true – an imaginative vision. In the United States, we have had such an epidemic of confessional imaginative visions that they have acquired the status of a psychological phenomenon: False Memory Syndrome.

Wendy Walker

Which Reader?

Jacqueline Rose seems unsure about the identity of the ‘reader’ referred to in the title of Bernhard Schlink’s novel, but it cannot easily refer to anyone except the narrator, since the original, somewhat untranslatable title, Der Vorleser, means ‘a male person who reads aloud to someone else’ (LRB, 31 July). When I read the novel, I hadn’t the faintest idea where the initial encounter between the narrator and Hanna would lead. It would be nice if others could have this experience too, but what chance is there of editions/ translations unfestooned with blurbs about guilt and concentration camps?

George Schlesinger


Mark Engel rightly objects to Peter Green’s practical explanation of the pork taboo in Leviticus as a protection against trichinosis (Letters, 3 July). Yet when Engel elaborates on Jewish dietary law he endorses another equally implausible proposition, taking for granted the religious view that Talmudic precepts derive directly from the Torah. The kosher rule that prohibits the eating of dairy products and meat together does not logically follow from the injunction in Exodus. The latter proscribes boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, but allows cooking the kid in the milk of another she-goat, or in ewe’s milk or cow’s milk, not to mention the laying out of a platter of cheese and pastrami, where nothing has been cooked in anything. The Talmudic ban extends to chicken and dairy, although birds don’t produce milk and no confusion can exist between their flesh and red meat. These puzzles were acknowledged by the young traditionalist rabbis I knew as a child, who revelled in challenging each other and their mentors to pyrotechnics of casuistry. The failure to find a satisfactory answer does not suspend the duty to comply, however, because traditional Judaic practice proceeds not from reasoned deduction but from cumulative historical authority.

The Exodus proscription may have derived from sectarian boundary-setting against groups that cooked spring kid in milk as a festive food with a ritual dimension. There are many recipes for meat cooked in milk or yoghurt in the Middle East, and the name of a Lebanese version, immos, implies that the young animal is cooked in its own mother’s milk (Claudia Roden calls this ‘rather tragic’ in A Book of Middle Eastern Food, and mentions its clash with Jewish dietary law). The Talmudic texts, composed during the third and fourth centuries CE, represent a different cultural environment; the sages who laid down the roots of historical Judaism in this period were attempting to establish a bridge to their biblical heritage, not always successfully. The fathers of Christianity and, a few centuries later, the jurists and legend-writers of Islam, attempted the same thing. As Engel says, neither kashrut nor reactions to homosexuality can be explained by practical concerns, but it should be added that the rules of kashrut do not support the interpretation that Talmudic Judaism is grounded in the Torah any more profoundly than these other two religions are in their scriptural heritage.

Mahir Saul
Urbana, Illinois

Marathon Men

In his piece about Richard Cook’s biography of Alfred Kazin, Keith Gessen corrects Cook’s New York geography, and so perhaps will not mind being corrected in turn (LRB, 19 June). Anyone attempting to find the George Washington Bridge at 186th Street will be sorely disappointed; it is about half a mile south at 179th Street. The walk Gessen mentions, from Kazin’s apartment at 111th Street to the bridge, is a distance of around three miles (there are about twenty blocks to the mile), a straight shot on Broadway, taking about an hour at a brisk pace.

Fred Schwarzbach
New York


One of the most likeable things about the pieces that appear in the LRB is that, if you liken them to golf shots, once airborne they seldom stick as closely as they might to the fairway. I would never have thought of likening them to golf shots at all had it not been for an advertisement in the last issue for a book that its publisher claims brings ‘golf, philosophy and poetry together’ (LRB, ). It’s clear that this is the volume those of us who have failed over very many years to find inner peace as we thrash our way past and all too often into the hazards yawning on every side on the local links have been waiting for. Except that the ambiguity of the ad makes me wonder whether the book is aimed at helping golfers to improve their game by making them more philosophical, or helping non-golfers to improve their lives by learning what makes golfers tick.

Patrick Ainscough
Southport, Merseyside

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.