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. 33 No. 11 · 2 June 2011

Search by issue:

Don’t look to the Ivy League

Howard Hotson has a polemic to make against the UK government’s higher education policy (a polemic I am sympathetic to), but in the process he issues some dubious statements about American universities (LRB, 19 May). ‘Market competition in the United States has driven up tuition fees in the private universities,’ he writes, ‘and thereby sucked out the resources needed to sustain good public universities, while diverting a hugely wasteful share of these resources from academic priorities to improving the “student experience" and debasing academic credentials through market-driven grade inflation.’

This sentence distorts the situation of American universities, their sources of support and their policies. I suppose in some cosmic economic analysis you could claim that American private universities consume too many resources, but there is no indication that economies on their part would go to support the public universities. These traditionally were funded largely by state budgets, that is by tax revenues, and ought still to be, though many states have deplorably underfunded them in recent years. The ‘elite’ private universities justify their high tuition charges through a policy of ‘need blind’ financial aid: that is, the claim that students will be admitted without attention to their ability to pay and given the resources they need. At the university where I currently teach, 60 per cent of students receive such financial aid, all of it in direct grants, not loans.

As for the debasement of academic credentials through ‘market-driven grade inflation’, I’d be interested to see Hotson’s evidence for his assertion. ‘Way back when,’ he writes, ‘the average mark in the US was supposed to be a C.’ Perhaps so, if you were partying with Scott Fitzgerald’s gilded youth in This Side of Paradise. I am convinced that the best universities now have a more serious, more academically committed, and harder-working student body, and that the rise in grade averages has something to do with this. American universities face multiple problems that are not altogether different from those in the UK. But I don’t see what is to be gained by demonising them in an otherwise justified critique of what’s going on in the UK.

Peter Brooks
Princeton University, New Jersey

Howard Hotson commits a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. He contends that the Canadian public university sector does better than the American on one-tenth the funding on the grounds that the University of Toronto outranks its highest-ranked American competitor, the University of Michigan. This ignores the fact that Canada pours a disproportionate amount of resources into Toronto and that the university has three undergraduate campuses, making it much larger than any American competitor. Indeed, there are at least a half-dozen American public institutions of comparable international stature.

Dhananjay Jagannathan
St John’s College, Cambridge

What’s what in Libya

Issandr El Amrani tells us that Misurata and al-Baida have ‘alternately’ changed hands, yet both fell to the opposition (or ‘rebels’) at the start of the uprising and have remained under their control (LRB, 28 April). Yes, Brega has changed hands repeatedly, but not Baida. More broadly, there is not nor has there been a ‘de facto division of Libya into east and west’. The Jebel Nafusa towns in the west (west of Tripoli) fell to the opposition in February, and the opposition has slowly consolidated its control there. Zawiya, west of Tripoli, fell to the opposition but was recaptured by government forces. Misurata is in the western half of the country.

Amrani is also wrong to say that the uprising is ‘mostly a Cyrenaican one’, unless he wants to write off the motivations and efforts of people in Misurata, Zawiya, the Nafusa towns and Tripoli too, where pro-government forces have killed and detained many. His assertion that recruitment to the uprising has ‘taken place largely through tribal affiliation’ is contradicted by the evidence and what the members of the Libyan opposition themselves say. The conflict in Libya is a liberation struggle that reaches across the country – its supporters call it the 17 February Revolution.

Richard Barltrop
Oxford

When Judaism became portable

Keith Thomas suggests that in a world where divinity was habitually thought to be located in holy places, it was ‘remarkable that the first Christians should have rejected the whole notion of sacred space’ (LRB, 19 May). Yet their reconception of divinity as located within the individual – they were, he says, ‘encouraged to see themselves, not buildings or sanctuaries, as the temple of the living God’ – was part of a larger concurrent transformation within the Judaic religious imagination. The destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the year 70 forced the rabbis of the era into a radical reconceptualisation of the locus of religious life: personal prayer replaced priestly sacrifices; everyday human actions – ‘deeds of love and kindness’, as the leading rabbinic authority Yochanan ben Zakkai described it – ensured the atonement that only set rituals within the sanctuary had previously effected; and the Sabbath table in every home replaced the altar. In effect, Judaism became portable; and diasporic religious life became possible. Without a priesthood, cult and external sacred space, the rabbinic imagination created new routes for the divine to be experienced within each individual: early Christianity was part of this post-cultic democratisation of religious self-expression. ‘Sacred space’ became internalised.

Howard Cooper
London N3

The ‘rag well’ Keith Thomas remembers from his childhood in the Vale of Glamorgan may have disappeared, but one survives at Trellech, between Chepstow and Monmouth. In addition to being a rag well, it has alleged medicinal properties, being in effect a chalybeate well, with supposed health-giving properties from iron salts in solution, as in Tunbridge Wells. There are no naturally occurring iron deposits in Trellech, now a village but one of the biggest towns in Wales in the 13th century, when the de Clare family exploited local resources to produce arms there. As a result, the water in the rag well passes through large quantities of medieval iron furnace slag, where it absorbs the iron salts. This would suggest that its medicinal properties date only as far back as the late medieval period.

John Owen
Caerphilly

XX/XY

Hilary and Steven Rose (LRB, 28 April) gloss over the problems associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Females (XX) with the condition do not have a ‘penis’. The genital enlargement affects the clitoris, through which urine does not pass. These females also have a uterus and ovaries and thus are capable of bearing children. They may have skin enlargement resembling a rudimentary scrotum but it contains no testes. Surgical intervention to restore or create ‘normal’ female external anatomy is not simply governed by ‘cultural norm’. CAH invariably requires lifelong hormone treatment to supplement adrenal insufficiency. Additional hormone replacement to counteract any foetal masculinisation incurred in an XX baby might be considered not as the mandatory intervention described by the Roses, but as a kindly response to the difficulties involved in trying to restore the full sexual and gender potential of those with CAH.

Nigel Ganly
Exeter

The Death of Edith Cavell

Susan Pedersen writes about Britain’s ‘second most famous nurse’, Edith Cavell (LRB, 14 April). It is a curiosity of literary history that Gottfried Benn, the German expressionist poet, was present at her execution in his official capacity as surgeon major to the German army in Brussels: he confirmed Cavell’s death, closed her eyes and laid her in her coffin.

These details come from the eyewitness account ‘How Miss Cavell Was Shot’ (‘Wie Miss Cavell erschossen wurde’), which Benn published in the National-Zeitung on 22 February 1928. It appears he was moved to write the piece partly by the execution in Boston of the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti – one liberal paper in Berlin had called it a ‘judicial murder’ – but also to refute the suggestion in the silent film Dawn, released in 1928 with Sybil Thorndike in the lead, that Cavell had been dispatched with a ‘mercy shot’.

Although not unsympathetic to Cavell, Benn justified the execution as a historical necessity: ‘World history is not the basis of happiness and the posts of the Pantheon are smeared with the blood of those who act and then suffer, as demanded by the law of life.’ His tone is an odd mixture of Prussian coolness and appeal to the new Weimar feminism:

How is the shooting of Miss Cavell to be judged? It was all quite official and legal. She acted as a man and was punished by us as a man. She worked actively against the German army and she was crushed by this army. She had entered into the war and the war annihilated her. The French, too, shot a woman as a spy. I believe that today’s woman not only understands this outcome but demands it.

Disobligingly, Thea Sternheim, wife of the dramatist Carl Sternheim, who lived in Brussels at the time and knew Benn well, confessed in her diary (published in five volumes in 2002) that she found Benn a bit too gimlet-eyed: he saw the execution with the ‘frightful objectivity of a doctor cutting up a corpse’. Benn’s effortless mastery of the first-hand report as an exercise in style prompted the left-wing writer, and pioneer roving reporter, Egon Erwin Kisch to write an article a year later which concluded: ‘Benn is a snob … who has no idea about the world but treats it’ – i.e. in the manner of a doctor.

Iain Bamforth
Strasbourg

Unfair to Bright

Jackson Lears treats John Bright unfairly (LRB, 19 May). Bright may have been a ‘theatrical orator’ but it’s not true that he ‘couldn’t be bothered with political detail’ or that he only picked easy targets. His opposition to the popular Crimean War led to his vilification in the press, accusations of treachery from other MPs, and the loss of his Manchester seat in 1857.

Michael Davies
Lancaster

Interpretations of History

Ella Raff has my sympathy when she writes about her unstimulating A-level history course (Letters, 19 May). After I retired from full-time teaching 12 years ago I offered to run a Mathematics for Adults course for the WEA. They turned me down because I didn’t intend to aim for NVQ, Key Skills or any other official accreditation. It was a jolt even so to hear Charles Clarke – secretary of state for education and skills – declare that ‘the age of education for education’s sake has passed.’

Howard Millbank
Bristol

Disillusioned

I thought the whole point of illusions was that what you see is not what you get. The illustration of the Müller-Lyer illusion on Jerry Fodor’s piece defeated the object of the exercise in that the upper line, which was supposed only to appear longer, was actually longer by nearly two millimetres (LRB, 28 April).

Penelope Woolfitt
London N10

Mistake

Some editions of the previous issue of the LRB were missing the last three words of Jenny Diski’s piece. Thanks to the many who rang and said we needed lessons in sub-editing. We probably do, but this isn’t evidence of it. Some things are mysterious. For those who didn’t ring and didn’t write: the words were ‘wore a wig’.

Editor, ‘London Review’

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.