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. 22 · 18 November 2010

Search by issue:

Montgomery Lift

I’m not sure Billy Wilder would agree with Michael Newton that Montgomery Clift was neither sardonic nor amused enough for his films (LRB, 7 October). In fact, William Holden wasn’t Wilder’s first choice to play Joe Gillis in Sunset Boulevard. It’s known that it was after a skiing holiday in Switzerland, when Clift read the script or at least parts of it, that he turned down Wilder’s offer. Either he thought of himself as not being either sardonic or amused enough, or he simply hated the script.

The original opening sequence, which took place in a morgue with several corpses talking to each other, was found laughable after a sneak preview and cut from the film: ‘It was the kind of laugh I dreamed of getting, but for a comedy,’ Billy Wilder tells Charlotte Chandler in Nobody’s Perfect: A Personal Biography. That’s a lost scene. What remains is some raw footage of the ambulance getting to the morgue and the corpse of Joe Gillis being wheeled in, and, of course, the memories of anyone still alive who was present at that sneak preview in Evanston, Illinois. There’s a story that one of them, a woman who wore a big hat with a ribbon and a feather, not knowing who Wilder was, addressed him on the stairs of the theatre: ‘Have you ever seen shit like this before in your life?’ ‘Never!’ Wilder answered.

Vitor Alves
Lisbon

Browne’s Gamble

Stefan Collini’s despair is fully justified (LRB, 4 November). A ‘student choice’ funding model was adopted in New Zealand in the 1990s, and the results were deplorable. The majority of students, especially when facing high fees, will tend to ‘choose’ the qualifications that are easiest and cheapest to complete, just for the sake of a qualification and to kill time before they have to seek employment. This is great news for business schools, which can provide relatively low-cost, high-throughput degrees with at least the appearance of vocational relevance. Overall, the students and the universities will compete on lower quality, as the former seek ease of completion and the latter seek bums on seats. The humanities and the natural sciences tend to suffer. The Clark government in New Zealand (in office from 1999 to 2008) had to spend a number of years trying to get some common sense and focus on quality back into our university system.

Grant Duncan
Massey University, Auckland

Since young people are being asked to invest in themselves, they should be given the same tax benefits as small business owners. A small business start-up is allowed to deduct 50 per cent of the cost against profits. Investors in education will not be given the same benefit.

Constance Blackwell
London NW6

Stefan Collini is right to criticise the baton passed from Mandelson to Cable that is the Browne Report. And rather than causing the Lib Dem leadership anguish, the proposals are completely in sync with its ideology: a simultaneous belief in the efficiency of markets and the rationality of their participants, on the one hand, and in the inability of markets to produce a sensible or beneficial outcome for society (such as enough well-trained doctors or teachers), on the other. One can only imagine that Clegg and Co, when signing up to the now abandoned pledge not to raise tuition fees, were either confident of not being elected, or canny enough to spot a shortcut to student votes. What Collini only hints at, however, is quite how enthusiastic many influential university managers are about Browne. They should be: they as good as wrote chunks of it. The submission by the Russell Group to the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance in May argued for variable fees, a removal of the cap on charges, support for Stem subjects, the introduction of a ‘real’ rate of interest, and increased repayment rates, while rejecting a ‘graduate tax’. It states that ‘an increase in graduate tuition contributions . . . represents the only viable option for ensuring sufficient funding for a world-class higher education system, in a manner that is fair, sustainable, and protects access,’ and that an increase in graduate contributions will also facilitate a more differentiated market in higher education. This will create a fairer system in which the graduates who secure the greatest benefits will make the greatest contribution, and where diverse models of teaching and learning can be efficiently supported. Graduate contributions also provide more incentives for institutions to improve quality and responsiveness to students’ needs as they encourage students to be more demanding of their universities. So wedded must some Russell Group VCs be to the principle of market forces that one of them referred publicly to unlimited fees as the ‘sunny uplands’ for higher education.

Ben Bollig
Leeds

Adieu, madame

I wonder whether Robert Gottlieb’s biography of Sarah Bernhardt is as vitriolic as Terry Castle’s review of it (LRB, 4 November). Though I was only born the year the Divine Sarah died, I feel I came under her spell through the actor Esme Percy, whom I knew in his old age. In his youth he had been what would now be termed her stalker, and he remained a lifelong worshipper at the Bernhardt shrine. I well remember his reciting the ‘Marseillaise’ in her vibrant voice, with her phrasing and passion, as a sort of party piece, and it took one’s breath away.

Barbara Smoker
Bromley

What to say of the newly-weds?

Tom Paulin suggests that Larkin’s well documented antipathy to marriage is qualified by ‘The Whitsun Weddings’ (LRB, 21 October). The last lines of that poem are: ‘A sense of falling, like an arrow-shower/ Sent out of sight, somewhere becoming rain.’ The sense of falling communicates the ‘disappointment’, but Paulin identifies in the arrows/rain metaphor ‘a swelling sense of fertility and alert purpose, with more than a hint of tears’. Is this more positive construction justified? I read it differently, as a failure of aims: the guided impetus of the wedding moments, launching the happy couples, loses direction and purpose, becomes diaspora, and slowly disappears. It is surely a reading that is more consistent with the poem’s general tenor as well as Larkin’s broader prejudices.

Malcolm Andrews
University of Kent

As Stalin showed

Slavoj Žižek, in his review of Richard McGregor’s The Party (LRB, 21 October), seems to be suggesting that something new is happening in China. I can’t see it. To recover from the devastation of the Civil War, and to set the country on the road to economic modernisation in the absence of world revolution, the Bolsheviks turned to the capitalist market. At the same time, they tightened political repression for fear that the ‘alien class influences’ now to be unleashed might erode the Party’s monopoly of power. From there increased Party control over state and cultural institutions became necessary if market capitalism was to flourish. There would be no transition to political democracy, and if such a transition were to threaten, the only credible response would be a ‘left turn’, back to the future, as Stalin showed in 1929, when he felt the regime’s monopoly of foreign trade to be under siege.

Albion Urdank
Los Angeles

Blent

Larkin got ‘blent’ from Yeats (Letters, 4 November)? Anyone of Larkin’s years, let alone Yeats’s, would have been familiar with the section of Childe Harold beginning with the Duchess of Richmond’s Ball (‘There was a sound of revelry by night’) and ending on the field of Waterloo: ‘heap’d and pent,/Rider and horse, – friend, foe, – in one red burial blent!’ Byron got it from speaking English. You could set up a Pedants Corner, like Private Eye.

M. Smithurst
Winchester

On Teesside

In her journey down Linthorpe Road in Middlesbrough, Joanna Biggs unwittingly touches on one of the town’s most interesting ventures: the Linthorpe Pottery (LRB, 21 October). This was founded in the town in 1879 as a result of a meeting between John Harrison, a local landowner, and the designer Christopher Dresser. One of its aims was to alleviate local unemployment – some things never change.

Dresser worked in glass and metal; he designed wallpaper; and he was a potter. He had travelled widely, not least in Japan, but almost all the pottery was produced in Middlesbrough. Unusually, the factory paid attention to good working conditions: comfort, space, light and proper ventilation; it was the first in the country to use gas-fired kilns. Alas, this was too good to last. Dresser’s connection with Linthorpe Pottery ceased after only three years, artistic standards declined and the factory closed only ten years after it had opened.

Roger Morsley-Smith
London W4

It’s him!

The French students in May 1968 didn’t quite grasp the subtlety of De Gaulle’s famous remark. Or at least, they restrained themselves from doing so.

His denunciation of the riots as a ‘chienlit’, quoted by Jeremy Harding, was knowingly ambiguous between the old word for ‘carnival’, chienlit, and the scatological chier en lit – ‘to shit the bed’ (LRB, 4 November). But the students weren’t interested in the subtlety and posters were plastered overnight on every wall in Paris, reading ‘La chienlit, c’est lui!’

Louise Hirsch
Hamburg

Jeremy Harding omits one of De Gaulle’s most improbable achievements. He ensured that France, universally written off at the time as a Great Power, nevertheless became one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Nicholas Faith
London N7

Not Again

President Truman was not ‘re-elected’ in 1948, as Jonathan Fenby has it, but elected, having assumed the presidency on Roosevelt’s death in 1945 (LRB, 21 October).

Geoffrey Taunton
Vouzan, France

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.