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. 33 No. 20 · 20 October 2011

Search by issue:

Which one of you is Jesus?

Especially for someone who has herself experienced coerced psychiatric confinement, Jenny Diski displays an astonishing degree of misunderstanding of postwar psychiatry (LRB, 22 September). ‘By the 1960s and 1970s,’ she writes, ‘a coalition of right-wing libertarians, left-wing radicals and the kind-hearted … collaborated to shut down the fortresses and free the mad to roam.’ Who, other than me, were the right-wing libertarian brutes? What makes a person who opposes the psychiatric incarceration and coerced drugging of innocent persons a right-winger? What happened to the right to liberty, to be let alone by the state?

‘Before and after the time of the anti-psychiatrists,’ Diski continues, ‘the pro-psychiatrists did everything in their ever increasing “scientific" power to liberate the mad from the bin and bring them back to the world of normality with cold showers, electric shocks, insulin shock, brain cutting and anti-psychotic medication.’ Psychiatrists relied on police power – not ‘scientific’ power – to torture the inmates. Diski’s ‘liberating interventions’ were imposed on incarcerated individuals against their will. Diski writes as if she were describing natural events, not examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

She concludes: ‘The libertarians, for their part, simply announced that there was no such thing as madness and therefore the state was not required to oversee and pay for the care of those who were making themselves socially unwelcome (see Thomas Szasz).’ Diski here attributes views to me that are the opposite of those expressed in my writings and psychiatric practice. What Diski sees as overseeing and paying for the care of individuals stigmatised as mentally ill, I see as depriving such persons of liberty and dignity by incarcerating them as mad and dangerous to themselves and others. I see many options other than imprisoning or giving sick notes to socially unwanted persons. Diski sticks to her Manichean worldview composed of good left-wingers and evil right-wingers.

What has this got to do with Rokeach’s contemptible ‘study’, The Three Christs ofYpsilanti? Not much. As I noted in my review of the book in the New York Times in April 1964, the book is about impersonation, not mental illness – patients impersonating Christ, Rokeach impersonating a scientist studying nature. The inmates at Ypsilanti were not ‘Christs’, and everyone, including the inmates, knew it. In the second edition of the book Rokeach acknowledged that he too finally realised it.

Thomas Szasz
Manlius, New York

Too Kind to Hamilton

Almost everything Hal Foster says about Richard Hamilton demonstrates the now rather common critical method of reading into rather than out of any given art work (LRB, 6 October). Take his comments on the works which are supposedly about the Northern Irish Troubles. Hamilton does what any advertiser does: he removes all of the awkward, contradictory and difficult elements from the original images by prettifying and formalising his source material, and then informs the critics what he thought, or said he thought, he was doing. So he claimed of The Citizen that the image was ambiguous, though just what was ambiguous about a Christ-like image of a hunger striker, relentlessly used by the Provisional IRA as propaganda, is difficult to understand. The painting has two panels. The left-hand one is supposed to represent the prisoner’s shit-smeared cell but it is tastefully abstracted and painted, having none of the invasive potency of the actual photographs of faeces smeared on walls. In similarly reductive mode, the right-hand panel of The Subject reduces an Orangeman to a crudely painted cipher while the left-hand panel is an abstracted street scene based on a still of an armoured car driven through wreckage (though you would never know it). The equation, as with all of these diptychs, is crass: Orangemen equal rioting and the British presence. The State is even cruder. On the right is a British soldier, badly painted as ever, complete with a big gun; on the left is an image of a country road: big bad British soldiers with guns rule over Northern Ireland.

All of these works, acquired by the Tate, are perfect examples of state-supported salon art: deracinated images of the Troubles, stripped of disquieting elements, domesticated and made safe for mass consumption while the artists who actually did bear witness to the Troubles – and there are a lot of them – are resolutely ignored. As the art historian Fintan Cullen pointed out long ago, Irish art is often written out of art history, ‘thus encouraging the perpetuation of a metropolitan dominance’.

Brian McAvera
Downpatrick, Northern Ireland


John Barrell captures the equivocal nature of William Godwin’s insistence on ‘the collision of mind with mind’ (LRB, 8 September). Mary Hays came from the same tradition of intellectual and political activism as Godwin. She introduced herself to him in a letter asking to borrow a copy of An Enquiry concerning Political Justice because it was too expensive for her to buy. The correspondence (the letters were mainly from Hays) and the face to face encounters (mostly Godwin’s visits to her) produced a unique ‘proto-psychoanalysis’ (Mary Jacobus’s term) in which Godwin tried, as Barrell suggests, to make Hays more rational – ‘like a man’ – and she struggled to make him accept her as the flawed woman they agreed she was. Neither succeeded.

Still, the interactions were productive for both. Hays was Mary Wollstonecraft’s sole champion among the small cluster of female radicals after the blasting of Wollstonecraft’s hopes for a life with Gilbert Imlay, father of her daughter Fanny Imlay. On 8 January 1796 Hays tried her hand at matchmaking when she reintroduced Godwin and her beloved friend at tea in her lodgings. Hays reported to Godwin afterwards that Wollstonecraft applauded Godwin’s sensitivity to Hays’s unhappiness over William Frend, which raised him in Wollstonecraft’s estimation.

Godwin remained Hays’s standard of male intellection. Resisting what she saw as his hyper-rationality proved to be the catalyst for her own development. When Godwin published his Memoirs of the Author of ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, Hays produced a feminist corrective, her little remembered ‘Memoirs of Mary Wollstonecraft’ in Richard Phillips’s short-lived Annual Necrology, where Wollstonecraft’s necrology was placed beside Edmund Burke’s.

The ‘Memoirs of Wollstonecraft’ was probably intended as a first attempt at ‘female biography’, Hays’s response to the biographies of Great Men, like the biography Godwin wrote of Chaucer for Phillips. Her major work, Female Biography; or, Memoirs of Illustrious and Celebrated Women, of All Ages and Countries, published in six volumes by Phillips in 1803, assembled 300 bustling, active, mostly rebellious women – including Manon Roland, Girondist martyr, and Catharine Macaulay, Whig historian, whose reputation was tarnished after her marriage to a younger man.

Gina Luria Walker
New York

Is it evil?

‘Google,’ Daniel Soar writes, ‘faced the unfamiliar problem of the negative feedback loop: the fewer people that used its product, the less information it would have and the worse the product would get’ (LRB, 6 October). This isn’t actually a negative feedback loop – it’s still a positive feedback loop. In fact, it’s because it is a positive feedback loop that it’s so dangerous to Google. Positive feedback loops never reach an equilibrium. Either they generate continuous growth (as Google sees now) or continuous shrinkage. So the mechanism that allows Google to get better at getting better could also lead to its rapid failure if it were to lose market share. There is probably a rather narrow tipping point between business growth and failure.

Negative feedback loops are those that tend to promote stability. An example in Google’s case would be that as it gets better at what it does, it could come in for closer government scrutiny, which could limit its ability to keep growing.

Schuyler Senft-Grupp
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Daniel Soar assumes that Google will continue to use the information it gathers for the benign purpose of selecting advertisements for users. However, when the management decides that it wants to increase profits beyond what advertising can provide, they will sell the data they have to other companies for whatever purpose those companies determine. Soar also ignores the availability of the data to the government, to use for whatever purpose it might have.

Will Smith
Plano, Texas

No, they didn’t

I was intrigued to read in Amanda Vickery’s review of Margaret Hunt’s Women in18th-Century Europe that elite women ‘engineered revolts’ in 18th-century Poland (LRB, 8 September). I was not aware that any of the Polish revolts in the 18th century were ‘engineered’ by women, so I went back to Hunt’s book. With regard to Polish elite women, Hunt notes that they ‘played leading roles in several revolts’. A huge difference. But Hunt’s comment isn’t in any case historically accurate. She mentions the decorated woman soldier Joanna Zubr (1786-1852), but Zubr was a working-class woman, not a noblewoman; furthermore, she fought in military campaigns only in the 19th century. ‘Elite women participated in high politics to a far greater degree in Eastern Europe than in most Western nations,’ Vickery writes, echoing Hunt. Maybe so, but in 18th-century Poland they neither ‘engineered revolts’, nor ‘played leading roles’ in them.

Vickery’s glowing account of the political activism of elite women in Poland is seductive, but lopsided. She passes over in silence the fact that Polish women’s access to education was extremely limited. Polish universities first admitted women only in 1898 – Maria Sklodowska, the future Marie Curie, had to seek higher education elsewhere. When education was available to Polish women in the 18th century and during much of the 19th, it had very little to do with intellectual development and everything to do with moral upbringing, including the inculcation of ‘proper’ gender roles.

Halina Filipowicz
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Cold War Nostalgia

There is an aspect of the various versions of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy that Michael Wood doesn’t discuss (LRB, 6 October). The novel and the 1970s TV adaptation share a preoccupation with the unravelling of the governing elite’s opaque codes of conduct. It is hard to imagine how the new film could have accommodated the end credits of the TV series, with their image of ‘dreaming spires’ overlain with the voice of a choirboy, or the lengthier and mawkish account of Jim Prideaux’s sojourn at a shabby prep school: these worked as symbols of cultural disintegration, about which both novel and TV adaptation exhibited some ambivalence. In the film, nostalgia for a world untainted by the foulness and corruption of espionage is replaced, through a selective representation of the era’s popular music and design, with nostalgia for the 1970s, and even for the Cold War itself.

Chris Goldie
Sheffield Hallam University

From the Train

Peter Campbell quotes Steen Eiler Rasmussen, writing in the 1930s that the typical house seen ‘from railroads intersecting the suburbs of London’ has a bathroom (LRB, 22 September). But the most noticeable feature of houses seen from trains going into Liverpool Street in the 1940s and 1950s was a tin bath hanging by the back door. In other words, more modest bathroomless houses were built – often beside the railway – with exterior access to a lavatory and a bowl and ewer in every bedroom.

Ian Davidson
London NW11

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.