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. 17 · 8 September 2011

Search by issue:

Invisible Man

Thomas Powers, reviewing the biography of Malcolm X by Manning Marable, reports that Marable thought ‘the investigation of the murder was botched and that some of those who participated in the killing went free’ (LRB, 25 August). Powers adds: ‘It may be so.’ Marable also believed that the man convicted of firing the shotgun, Thomas 15X Johnson, was innocent. Johnson, 29 years old at the time of the murder and a follower of Elijah Muhammad, spent 22 years in New York state prisons, where he adopted a more conventional Sunni faith and changed his name to Khalil Islam. Marable credited his alibi – that he was home in bed in the Bronx with an attack of rheumatoid arthritis when Malcolm X was shot – on the grounds that security at the Audubon Ballroom would never have allowed in ‘a well-known enforcer’ for the Nation of Islam, which Johnson was. Johnson died at the age of 74, an invisible man.

Eric Strong
New York

Dismantling the Universities

Stefan Collini’s account of the higher education White Paper is lopsided: it is too convenient simply to blame the government (LRB, 25 August). The universities would not have been so easily ‘dismantled’ if the vice-chancellors, the managers and, most significant, the academics themselves had not colluded with it. Even the academic trade unions, the AUT and the UCU, resorted to justifying their own claims by reference to the ‘economic needs’ of the nation. The episode confirms Bourdieu’s assertion that intellectuals form the ‘dominated fraction of the dominant class’. It is misleading of Collini to compare the prose styles of the government White Paper, which focuses on the economic value of a university education, and the Robbins Report, which affirmed the virtues of a liberal education that Arnold, Newman or Huxley would have recognised, and is, of course, much more congenial to the academic’s idealised self-image. That academics conformed so readily to the culture of monetarism suggests that the ethos of a liberal education was already set up to be disposed towards it. The pronouncements of Robbins, let alone Newman and Huxley, on the nation’s ‘needs’ and social benefits are themselves another way of ensuring the instrumentalisation of knowledge, in accordance with the idea that education must have a quantifiable use value.

Martin Davies
University of Leicester

Stefan Collini appears to assume that the White Paper proposes a pro-rata decrease in the number of AAB students in the core allocation of student numbers. But the White Paper says that ‘places will be removed from institutions’ core allocations on a pro-rata basis, once AAB places have also been removed.’ In other words, it looks as if the proposal is that all AAB places will be discounted across the board, and then a further pro-rata reduction in the number of students remaining – i.e. those with lower grades – will be made across the board. In practice, this will mean each institution’s core will consist of its current non-AAB intake, minus a pro-rata cut of around 8 per cent of places to be distributed among the £7500 providers. If this is implemented, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and the LSE will be free to recruit exactly the numbers they wish, but everybody bar the top few will have to increase significantly the number of AAB students they admit in order for their numbers to stand still. One way to offset a loss in numbers is of course to raise the fee. Though some institutions will find themselves in the ‘race to the bottom’, Collini notes, many more are quite happy for now to take five students at £9000 rather than six at £7500.

It is a nice irony that during this year’s post-results scramble for places David Willetts was quoted as saying that the Ucas tariff has led people to believe, in what amounts to a ‘cruel trick’, that ‘non-academic’ A levels have equal worth to ‘core academic subjects’ in terms of admission to very selective universities. Unless Ucas can be persuaded to award more tariff points for an A* in English than in, say, Business Studies, next year will see many universities and schools revising their opinion of the worth of A and B grades in subjects like Media Studies, Critical Thinking and General Studies.

Stephen Longstaffe
University of Cumbria, Carlisle

I wonder how long it will be before the validity of an argument, the consistency of a position, or the evidence for a belief is determined not by reason but by show of hands, size of headline or contribution to GNP.

Peter Cave
London W1

The Innocents Abroad

Thomas Jones is sharp in pointing out that in Ann Patchett’s novel State of Wonder ‘the world outside North America doesn’t really exist: it’s a fuzzy, malleable backdrop for the psychodramas of her American characters’ (LRB, 25 August). This is not so much a defect of Patchett’s as a feature of the contemporary American novel writ large. How else to explain Chip in Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections fleeing academic disgrace to commit cyberfraud in Lithuania; or the Ukraine of Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything Is Illuminated, where the natives speak in adorable English malapropisms and we learn about the gruesome soap opera called the Holocaust; or Dave Eggers’s two fictional forays to Africa, a good place to give money away or to escape from? As an Indian housekeeper says in Nell Freudenberger’s Lucky Girls, ‘Travelling is for people who don’t know how to be happy.’ At least the late David Foster Wallace’s fiction never travelled much further than Quebec. As for our homeland, I’ve always thought of New York as a city where Martin Amis narrators go to sleep with whores.

Lindsay Jacobs
Portland, Oregon

From Capital onto Labour

Corey Robin is right to fault Obama for capitulating to Congressional Republicans in the scuffle over the debt ceiling (LRB, 25 August). But after the deal was struck it became clear that the right is pursuing something more subtle than a simple ‘anti-tax philosophy’. GOP leaders have opposed Obama’s plan to extend the payroll tax cut, enacted last December, which benefits employees who earn less than $100,000 a year. This affirms the party’s real agenda: not so much a matter of killing taxes as shifting the tax burden from capital onto labour. Here was the meaning of George W. Bush’s ‘ownership society’: a society dominated by those who own things. It’s left to the rest of us to pay the rent, and regressive taxes – not to mention the austerity Obama has championed as a good neoliberal – don’t make that any easier.

Jonathan Kaplan
Somerville, Massachusetts

The Lord’s Request Fulfilled

I was sorry that Terry Castle in her essay on outsider art didn’t have more to say about the late American artist Howard Finster, who introduced many of us – in America, at least – to the strange marvels of outsider art, but given that she finds his work ‘repulsive’ it may be just as well (LRB, 28 July). Finster started out as a Baptist preacher and, after a fashion, as a curator: he created a ‘Plant Farm Museum’ in Georgia in order to ‘show all the wonderful things of God’s Creation, kinda like the Garden of Eden’. But God, he claimed, had other things in mind for him, instructing Finster to ‘paint sacred art’. The Lord’s order, he said, was quite specific: he wanted Finster to make 5000 paintings to spread the gospel. And so from the mid-1970s until his death in 2001, Finster painted furiously, scrawling biblical verses on his intricately detailed paintings, some of which depicted sacred American icons, like Elvis and George Washington. Each painting, of course, had a number, and by the time he died Finster had produced tens of thousands, easily fulfilling the Lord’s request. And despite commissions for cover art from REM and Talking Heads, he never ceased to think of himself as the Lord’s servant. When Talking Heads released Little Creatures, he remarked: ‘They sold a million records in the first two and a half months after it came out, so that’s 26 million verses I got out into the world in two and a half months.’

James Finlay
Baton Rouge

Period v. Historical

Perry Anderson mistakes one category and misses another in his account of the historical novel (LRB, 28 July). A Zeitroman does indeed overlap with the lifetime of the author, as he says, but that is not what defines it. This characteristically German species lays bare the tensions and contradictions of a society in crisis. The MagicMountain is an example. The historical novel, on the other hand, should be distinguished from an adjacent variety Anderson doesn’t mention: the period novel. This too is set in the past, but lacks the political framework of the novels Anderson focuses on: major public actors or events feature in period novels as occasional references, but not as drivers of the story. This is why Buddenbrooks, a great period novel, doesn’t compete with The Radetsky March, a historical one, as a study of decline.

Kristin Surak
Montorsoli, Italy

Can you stomach it?

Steven Shapin celebrates the 19th-century physician William Beaumont who introduced muslin bags containing food into the stomach of Alexis St Martin in 1825: ‘Human digestion had become visible,’ Shapin concludes (LRB, 30 June). In fact this could be said to have happened some four decades earlier. The Italian Abbé Spallanzani described his experiments on digestive juices in the Dissertazioni di Fisica Animale e Vegetabile of 1780. He swallowed perforated metal tubes containing beef and later forced himself to vomit, bringing up the tubes. ‘The flesh,’ he noted, ‘was thoroughly soaked in the fluid of the stomach, and the surface was soft and gelatinous; it had moreover wasted from 53 to 38 grains.’ This surely was the birth of digestive science.

John Woodley
Toulouse

There after all

It isn’t true, as Marina Warner writes, that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital has been ‘pulled down to make way for apartments behind Unison’s grand new building on the Euston Road’ (LRB, 25 August). The listed hospital building, significant for its architecture as well as its place in women’s social history, has been preserved and restored alongside the new building.

Chris Cossey
London SE11

‘The Traitor’

A note to Walter Murch’s translation of Curzio Malaparte’s ‘The Traitor’ suggests that the story is taken from Journal d’un étranger à Paris, leaving the impression that the original is in French (LRB, 28 July). In fact, it is a section of Malaparte’s diary, written in Italian, published after his death as Diario di uno straniero a Parigi, and subsequently translated into French and other languages. Some of Malaparte’s texts appeared first in French, before and after the war, but all of them (with the exception of two plays in 1947-48 and some minor journalism) were written in Italian.

Maurizio Serra
Rome

Useless Eaters

‘The phrase “useless eaters",’ according to Alex Lockwood, ‘was first used by German advocates of eugenics’ (Letters, 25 August). But the term ‘bouches inutiles’ was in general use in 18th-century warfare to describe the civilian population of besieged fortresses, and probably goes back a long way before that.

Michael Howard
Eastbury, Berkshire

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.