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. 37 No. 19 · 8 October 2015

Search by issue:

Let’s all go to Mars

David Runciman wrote last year that Richard Branson portrays himself as ‘a plucky David in a world of corporate Goliaths’ despite having ‘made his fortune out of the regulated parts of the economy, which he has milked to extract government subsidies, tax breaks, licensing agreements and protected income streams’ (LRB, 20 March 2014). Elon Musk, whom John Lanchester wrote about, isn’t so different (LRB, 10 September). Musk, like Branson, encourages his followers to see him as a paragon of Randian individualism and enlightened futurism. As they see it, Musk’s success can be chalked up to his hardy upbringing in the wastes of South Africa, where the government’s only use was as a helpful antagonist spurring Musk’s development into today’s virtuous ‘disrupter’ of the calcified status quo.

Lanchester emphasises Musk the individualist and ignores Musk the cynical entrepreneur. No mention is made of the Department of Energy’s $465 million direct loan to Tesla, or to the State of Nevada’s $1.5 billion package of tax refunds and other direct subsidies to Tesla to build a battery factory, extracted with promises of jobs and classic Bransonian threats to accept another state’s offer if Nevada didn’t give Tesla all it could give.

To be fair to Lanchester, Musk has a proven ability to deliver on his promises, unlike Branson: governments can expect more than just empty tarmac in the desert when they throw money his way. Musk may well usher in a future of electric roadsters instead of filthy internal combustion engines; privately constructed pneumatic tubes instead of taxpayer-built high speed rail. But to paraphrase Barack Obama: Musk, you won’t have built all that.

Walker Boyd
Albuquerque, New Mexico

John Lanchester errs in placing Kitty Hawk on the Grand Banks. It is on the Outer Banks. The Grand Banks are an underwater feature off the coast of Newfoundland.

Peter Samson
McLean, Virginia

At the Crossing

I remember many years ago a crossing, similar to the one described by Andrew O’Hagan though smaller, near Trongate in Glasgow (LRB, 24 September). The busy shoppers could not wait for the lights to change, but would instead wait for a gap in the traffic flying around the corner, then move into the road en masse. My mother would grab my hand and launch herself forward, usually at the side furthest from oncoming traffic, the reason being that others would have to be mown down before the vehicles could reach us.

Roy McGregor
Glasgow

Andrew O’Hagan is wrong to think that the curse of the cyclist threatens the well-being only of city dwellers. Down here the local authorities and the Dartmoor National Park Authority have colluded to establish a series of ‘cycleways’ – i.e. paved roads – across the moor. Where once only a decent pair of boots and goodly sweat would permit those so inclined to go across the nearly trackless wastes, disturbance of one’s peace by cyclists, some of them drawn along by harnessed dogs, is becoming the norm. Worse, their monstrous tyres churn up the land as no other traveller on Dartmoor has done for the last six thousand years.

Angus Doulton
Bere Ferrers, Devon

‘For pedestrians, London bikes are much worse than white vans,’ Andrew O’Hagan writes in defiance of any reliable statistics. However you dice them, the figures show that motor vehicles are between 80 and 120 times more likely to be the cause of serious injury or worse to pedestrians.

Cyclists, as O’Hagan characterises them, are a ‘community’ only in an imagined and rather pernicious way. Far from being homogeneous in their sanctimony, cyclists in London range from those excluded from the Tube by rising fares and from buses by unreliability over long-distance commutes, to ‘ordinary hard-working people’, to lycra-wrapped obsessives. A proportion of them are nasty, and all of them are always already also pedestrians.

Jack Brennan
London SE15

Oh, Mr Clark

When I was a child I heard on the wireless a rhyme which began:

Oh, Mr Porter, whatever shall I do?
I wanted to go to Birmingham
And got carried on to Crewe.

Today I became so absorbed in T.J. Clark’s article on Auerbach that the cakes – for a party – in my oven burned and were inedible (LRB, 10 September).

Gillian Nelson
Drumnadrochit, Inverness

The Duke of Windsor’s War

The Duke of Windsor appears also to have been a traitor (Letters, 10 September and Letters, 24 September). At the outbreak of war in 1939, he was made a major-general attached to the British Military Mission in France. In that capacity he would have attended Allied War Council meetings. It became known after the war that he had made a visit to The Hague in January 1940 (the Netherlands was still neutral then) and paid a visit to the German Embassy there. The following extract is from the German Foreign Policy Documents 1918-45, Series D, Vol. VIII, No. 621. These can be found online.

124/122669

Minister Zech to State Secretary Weizsäcker

SECRET

THE HAGUE, February 19, 1940.

DEAR WEIZSÄCKER: The Duke of W., about whom I wrote to you in my letter of the 27th of last month, has said that the Allied War Council devoted an exhaustive discussion at its last meeting to the situation that would arise if Germany invaded Belgium. Reference was made throughout to a German invasion plan said to have been found in an airplane that made a forced landing in Belgium. On the military side, it was held that the best plan would be to make the main resistance effort in the line behind the Belgian-French border, even at the risk that Belgium should be occupied by us. The political authorities are said to have at first opposed this plan: after the humiliation suffered in Poland, it would be impossible to surrender Belgium and the Netherlands also to the Germans. In the end, however, the political authorities became more yielding.

Heil Hitler!

Zech

Andrew Richardson
Bournemouth

How to Do Good

William MacAskill and his followers, about whom Amia Srinivasan writes, believe that buying insecticide-coated malarial nets for Africa is an effective bit of altruism (LRB, 24 September). As noted in a report in the New York Times, these nets are modified and used for fishing in lakes such as Lake Tanganyika. The modified nets catch everything, leaving little breeding stock for future generations. Unintended consequences of long-distance do-gooding?

Rajith Dissanayake
Birkbeck, University of London

As a doctor with experience in international health I have found that some of the claims made by the proponents of effective altruism are not merely ‘satisfyingly counterintuitive’: they are wrong. For example, MacAskill claims that deworming has better educational outcomes among Kenyan schoolchildren than increasing the number of textbooks or teachers. This notion is based almost entirely on a single study published by Miguel and Kremer in the journal Econometrica in 2004 and has recently been debunked by Aiken, Davey et al in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Deworming does not improve educational outcomes. A review of the evidence available in the field of development studies makes it clear that improved educational outcomes in developing countries are best achieved by, wait for it, a decent, well-resourced school system. The idea that a single anti-worm pill is the key to solving the deep societal injustice of poor education is another instance of the glib ‘freakonomics’ style of thinking that has hijacked much of the field of social studies. Claims for a pharmacological magic bullet as a solution to poor educational attainment in Africa dovetail very nicely with the prevalent ideology of international health governance, which is content to accept structural inequalities in wealth and power while focusing on vertical, narrow, top-down, and ultimately ineffective strategies in alleviating health inequalities.

Yannis Gourtsoyannis
London WC1

On Not Getting Things Done

Christopher Gordon writes that St Expedite (Expeditus) ‘may be no more than the embodiment of a pun’ (Letters, 24 September). In fact his existence owes more to a misunderstanding. In the mid-19th century a package containing a finger bone and some teeth was sent by the bishop of Toulouse to a convent in Rome. The package was marked in expedito. The nuns assumed it was the name of the hermit they were asked to pray to. Miracles ensued and canonisation. But the Vatican in its own good time realised the mistake. In 1905 the relics were deconsecrated, and St Expedite was relegated to apocryphal status. Nevertheless the cult flourishes. In Catalan country he is venerated as an antidote to ‘mañana’. My local church has an altar to him, and it doesn’t lack for get-well cards. Evidently there is a pressing need for speedy recoveries.

Augustus Young
Port Vendres, France

Social Bandits

Cal Winslow states that smugglers were admired rather than feared by country people, as in the legend of Robin Hood (Letters, 10 September). This is borne out by a fascinating journal in which were recorded letters written by the Excise officers of Penzance to their superiors in London in the early 18th century. The journal is now in the care of the Record Office in Truro. One of these letters, dated 14 December 1749, suggests that the country people not only offered moral support to the smugglers and plunderers of wrecks, but also joined in their enterprises:

Last night was drove on shore by distress of weather in this Bay the Squirrell Snow of North Yarmouth, Henry William Master, from Salox with brandy for Bolloing in France when the Country immediately boarded her, stripped the master of everything valuable then carryed off what brandy they could and in the hurry sett fire to the rest of the cargoe so that the whole ship is now in flames. We hope yr Honrs are by this satisfied there’s nothing to be preserved either by shipwrecks or from smuggling without the assistance of a millitary force.

Another letter complains that the parish constable was unwilling to execute warrants against those suspected of smuggling, while a third protests that even those from whom the Excise men felt they deserved support and assistance were reluctant to intervene:

Mount 25 Jany 1749. Honble Sir. This morning about two o’clock Mr Colman and self met one Harris of Coverack on the western pier, we examined him what brought him there he did not satisfie us, but going on the back of the pier saw a Lugg sail boat let go her anchor. We knew we had not strength sufficient in the place. Mr Colman went immediately to acquaint Mr Elliott at Marazion and to get what help he could. He soon returned with answer that Mr Elliott was very much indisposed and that we must act according to our own discretion. Accordingly we got four hands and rowd off but Harris above observering our motion called to the people on board the boat to be on the guard and to keep us off. We were within an oars length of the boat when we demanded entrance. They swore bitterly we should have none and that they would knock out our brains which they endeavoured to do with a boat hook or long pole and oars. Then they took up stones and threw at us.

Andrew Darling
Leyburn, North Yorkshire

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.