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. 32 No. 2 · 28 January 2010

Search by issue:

Preparing for Armed Battle

‘It was not just Communist misrule and Soviet imperialism that the brave crowds overthrew in 1989, but Hitler’s malign legacy,’ Neal Ascherson writes (LRB, 7 January). Yet the collapse of Communism – and the rise in unemployment and income disparity it produced in much of Eastern Europe – has also created a space in which that legacy has continued to fester. The Czech Republic, for example, has placed thousands of healthy Roma children in schools for the mentally disabled, in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Arab, African and Turkish immigrants in Eastern Europe are confined to ghettos and prevented from integrating. And while there aren’t many Jews left, their sinister hand is invariably detected by the emerging parties of the populist far right, such as the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik); the newsletter of the ‘trade union of Hungarian police officers prepared for action’ (one in every ten officers is a member) recently declared: ‘Given our current situation, anti-semitism is not just our right: it is the duty of every Hungarian homeland lover, and we must prepare for armed battle against the Jews.’

Theo Russell
Leeds

Alan Bennett is right

Alan Bennett is right to note that the 1947 Royal Show was the first to be held following the Second World War (LRB, 7 January). However, he and his fellow coach travellers from Leeds would need to have visited Lincoln rather than York to enjoy the Royal Agricultural Society’s show that year. The Royal Show took place in York the following year, in 1948.

Andrew Walker
Lincoln

Alan Bennett is wrong

Alan Bennett writes: ‘Most men and fewer dons don’t like women’ (LRB, 7 January). Could he tell us what that means, and how he came to write such a sentence?

Michael Tanner
Cambridge

Alan Bennett wonders

Alan Bennett wonders how he came by the phrase ‘habit of art’ (LRB, 7 January). He settles on the ‘Catholic’ pedigree, which leads from Thomas Aquinas to Jacques Maritain to Flannery O’Connor, which is good enough. The Aquinas who originated the phrase, however, is the fictive character of Paradiso 13, instructing Dante on why entities created directly by God are superior to those created indirectly, through intermediary agents. (Like goods produced in China, they get further away from the original model.) The tercet (75-78) in question reads, in Singleton’s translation: ‘But nature always gives it defectively, working like the artist who in the practice of his art has a hand that trembles’ (‘ch’a l’abito dell’arte ha man che trema’).

Bennett is surely right about its being a Catholic thing. I don’t have a copy of Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry handy, but if memory serves, Maritain presents the text as a touchstone for his theory of art, altering line 78 to read as an ambiguous fragment: ‘l’abito dell’arte e man che trema.’ The latter translates more comfortably as ‘the habit of art’ than does the phrase in the original sentence. Maritain’s book was a must-read at US Catholic colleges in the 1950s and early 1960s, and I suppose elsewhere: I read portions of it with three different teachers at Boston College. No doubt Flannery O’Connor was as familiar with Maritain’s book as she was with the work of that other modish French Catholic writer Teilhard de Chardin.

John Brennan
New Haven, Indiana

Eliot Recycled

As Michael Wood demonstrates in reviewing T.S. Eliot’s letters of 1923-25 (LRB, 3 December 2009), Eliot like the rest of us was not above recycling a good remark. In the spring of 1947 I.A. Richards, at a somewhat awkward literary conversazione at Harvard, helpfully intervened with a brief homily on the supreme importance of poetry, ending with this assertion: ‘In short I should say that poetry is the house we live in.’ To which Eliot, silent up to that moment, responded: ‘Should you really? I should rather have called it the wallpaper.’ He had made exactly the same response to the same claim by Richards in his Criterion review of Science and Poetry 20 years earlier.

Warner Berthoff
Concord, Massachusetts

Hare-Brained? Sure?

In my review of Harold Evans’s My Paper Chase (LRB, 17 December 2009) I wrote that Lord Thomson, the proprietor of the Times and Sunday Times, ‘had had enough’ of industrial disputes by the time the papers were sold to Rupert Murdoch in 1981, to which Jacob Ecclestone responds that ‘Thomson had indeed “had enough". He died in 1976’ (Letters, 7 January). My consolation, rather than excuse, is that this is less embarrassing than the contrary mistake, which I have also made in print, of referring to someone as dead when the someone is still very much alive.

As Ecclestone concedes, this is less important than the larger story of what happened to those papers – and the press as a whole, I would add – in the 1970s and 1980s. He is right in saying that the lockout of 1978-79 was a desperate measure which was mishandled by the management and ended in defeat, but then he is not an entirely detached witness. In The History of the Times, Vol. VI: The Thomson Years 1966-81, the late John Grigg described the surprising choice of Ecclestone as head of the Times chapel of the National Union of Journalists in 1976, at a time when ‘he had come to feel rather aggrieved that he had not progressed further on the paper.’ Because of his antagonism towards the management, and his inability to see ‘that the real interests of the NUJ were incompatible with those of print unions’, he ‘supported the print chapels’ resistance’ to modernisation.

These are old, unhappy, far-off things and battles long ago. What is most bitter in hindsight is the consequence of the printers’ doomed campaign of sabotage. Apart from Murdoch’s acquisition of those papers, David Astor had certainly had enough of trying to publish the Observer in impossible circumstances, so that a great liberal paper was sold to an American oil company and then a crooked businessman, while the Berry family, who had struggled to maintain the Telegraph as an honourable Tory paper, lost control of it to a man who now resides in an American prison.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Bath

Darwiniana

Steven Shapin (LRB, 7 January), perhaps taking his cue from tendentiously truncated quotations from Darwin’s letters in Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin’s Sacred Cause, writes: ‘Preparing the Origin for the press and thinking about its reception made him physically ill: the book was published while he was taking a water cure at Ilkley, his face badly broken out in eczema.’ In fact for nearly 20 years any arduous work had exacerbated Darwin’s chronic illness; for instance, in a letter of 24 February 1849 Darwin told Owen he had ‘lost for the last 4 or 5 months at least 4/5 of my time’ and that he intended to spend two months trying out the water cure at Malvern, which ‘will cause a sad delay in my Barnacle work’. A close examination of Darwin’s letters and diaries shows no correlation between his severe bouts of illness and work on his transformation theory.

Allen Esterson
London W6

England v. France

There are two factual errors in Charles Glass’s piece on Britain and Vichy France (LRB, 17 December 2009). First, it was not General Noguès, commander of the French forces in North Africa, who ordered French troops to fire on the British and Free French at Dakar in September 1940, but General Pierre Boisson, who was the governor-general of West Africa. Second, it was not Darlan who replaced Laval as Pétain’s deputy in December 1940, but Pierre-Etienne Flandin. Darlan took over in February 1941 because the Germans would not talk to Flandin.

There is also a problem of interpretation in the article. Glass quotes an American journalist as commenting on the negative impact that Britain’s and de Gaulle’s campaigns against Vichy were having on the image of de Gaulle and the British in France. In fact what we now know about French public opinion, and what Vichy itself also knew, was that from as early as the autumn of 1940 the French people were largely pro-British despite Vichy propaganda. When the British bombed the Renault factory outside Paris in March 1942, killing some 500 people, an observer noted that ‘most people could not hide their jubilation.’ So to the extent that this was ‘England’s last war against France’ – the title of the book under review – it was a war in which the majority of the French people were on the opposite side from their own government.

Julian Jackson
Queen Mary, University of London

Charles Glass mentions the hard-fought campaign by the British, Australian and Arab forces which advanced into Vichy-held Lebanon and Syria from Palestine. Jewish Palestinians (of the once outlawed Haganah) also took part in this campaign, most notably Moshe Dayan, who suffered irreparable damage to his left eye from a French bullet that pierced his binoculars in an action across the Litani River, thereby ‘earning’ his iconic eyepatch. He was awarded the DSO, recommended by the Australian 7th Infantry Division, to which he was attached.

Raymond Aronson
Tel Aviv

Just Like in the Theatre

Jenny Diski was incorrect in stating that in the UK in 1960 Psycho was the first film to receive programme screening (LRB, 7 January). When Gone with the Wind arrived in Manchester in the early 1940s there were three separate performances daily and tickets had to be booked ‘just like in the theatre’, as one member of the public put it. No one was admitted after the film began, which proved a huge attraction; especially as there was an interval during which, possibly encouraged by Scarlett’s declaration that she would never be hungry again, we indulged ourselves in whatever refreshments were on offer.

Pamela Birley
London SW3

As I remember it, each programme (usually a B movie and a reel of news followed by the main feature) in the late 1940s and 1950s was rounded off with a crackly recording of the national anthem. Audiences usually made an unseemly rush for the exit in order to avoid standing with suitable reverence while this was played. It was in newsreel theatres like those at Waterloo and Victoria Stations that programmes were uninterrupted. It seems unlikely, therefore, that Hitchcock introduced the idea of set starting times for movies. I also think Cocteau’s Enfants Terribles, of 1949, was the first film to show a flushing lavatory. Incidentally, King Vidor’s silent film The Crowd (1928) shows its two stars in a poky apartment with a very visible toilet bowl in close proximity to the main action.

Andrew Wilton
London SW11

In Knots

Nigel Shardlow recommends the reef knot, also known as a square knot, to join two ends of a rope (Letters, 17 December 2009). Clifford Ashley, in The Ashley Book of Knots, thinks differently: ‘Under no circumstances should it be used as a bend. There have been more lives lost as a result of using a Square Knot as a bend (to tie two ropes together) than from the failure of any other half dozen knots combined.’

A reef knot is in fact an intentionally unreliable bend to join two ropes (lines). It is used to reef sails and therefore needs to be quickly tied and as quickly upset (untied) to free the reefed sail. There are much better choices to join two lines reliably, most notably the sheet bend.

Mark Roeyer
Lawrence, Kansas

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.