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. 21 · 5 November 2015

Search by issue:

We were in character too

In 2011, I was in discussion with Ilya Khrzhanovsky, the director of Dau, about co-directing with Nicolas Roeg an adaptation of Shusaku Endo’s Scandal (LRB, 8 October). Khrzhanovsky invited me out to the set of Dau in Kharkiv. The experience was as bizarre and unsettling as James Meek imagines. Khrzhanovsky sat at the centre of this world he had created out of a pastiche of historical memory and re-imaginings of what might have happened if politics, resources, theories and money had all fallen into alignment.

The day I arrived, we were plunged into the uncertainties and paranoia of 1953, just before the death of Stalin. We were given cribsheets of the history of the time and asked not to introduce anything into our conversations which could have occurred after 1953. Before entering the set (which was built round an enormous abandoned outdoor swimming pool), my companion and I were dressed in Soviet-style clothes of the period, right down to the underwear. My glasses were deemed too modern; a local optician had to open his shop and give me a suitable pair. Roubles were issued and passports provided. We were searched for any traces of modernity. Two ‘KGB officers’ interrogated us as to the reasons for our visit; one had actually been a KGB officer, the other a Gulag camp commander. We were then given the tour – no filming was taking place that day – but the set was fully peopled with workers and guards. The thing I found astonishing was that each time we entered a part of the set, be it the lab, the newspaper office, the interrogation cells, the café, the hairdresser’s, Dau’s house, whatever, the characters were in the middle of doing what they were supposed to be doing. Nothing, it felt, was being performed for our benefit. The scientists were conducting experiments on magnetically-fired bullets; the journalists were preparing copy for that night’s late edition (once they knew I was Scottish, they talked of John MacLean, the ‘Soviet consul’); the café was in full swing with grumbling customers and indifferent waitresses. The pièce de résistance of this literal charade was the visit to Dau’s apartments. The door was opened by his wife, Nora (played by the Ukrainian actress, Radmila Shchyogoleva). Nora was profuse in her apologies for Dau’s absence but invited us in for tea, which was duly prepared by a bustling, rotund babushka. Nora chattered on for half an hour, completely in character. But the disturbing trick of the whole experience is that my companion and I were also in character; maybe our ‘lines’ were a little uncertain but, by and large, we stuck to the rules: this was 1953 Soviet Russia and we were specialist tourists from the UK. It was like watching a play, but from the inside.

Even at that time Khrzhanovsky reported that he had shot seven hundred hours of footage. The whole experience had spiralled – I was going to say ‘out of control’, but that would be wrong: Khrzhanovsky is all about control. I asked him only two questions to which he did not have answers; both seemed to unsettle him: ‘How will you know when you are finished?’ and ‘How will you stop?’ James Meek’s report of Khrzhanovsky destroying the set doesn’t surprise me: how else could he have stopped? Of course, stopping isn’t the same as finishing.

Needless to say, the Roeg-Khrzhanovsky collaboration failed.

Eddie Dick
Edinburgh

Corbyn in the Media

Paul Myerscough refers to the BBC’s ‘dominant role in people’s reception of news and commentary’ (LRB, 22 October). The actual figures demonstrating that dominance are startling. Using data published by Ofcom and the official measurers of TV, radio and newspaper consumption, I have calculated that the average UK adult consumes 56.7 minutes of news and current affairs each day from UK sources; 39 per cent derives from TV, 29 per cent from radio, 18 per cent from newspapers and 14 per cent from online news sites. Because of the BBC’s super-dominance in TV and radio news and current affairs consumption (75 per cent and 85 per cent shares respectively), and its strong position online (nearly 50 per cent), the BBC’s overall share is 60.6 per cent, compared with 6.3 per cent for Murdoch’s newspapers, 5.7 per cent for the Mail group, 5.1 per cent for ITV, 4.2 per cent for Independent Radio News, 3.2 per cent for Sky News, 2.8 per cent for the Guardian (thanks to its online readership), 2.6 per cent for the Mirror group, 2.4 per cent for the Telegraph group, 2.4 per cent for the Express group and 1.2 per cent for Channel 4. No other provider has more than 1 per cent.

If any commercial organisation commanded a 60 per cent share of news consumption, there would be a national outcry, and demands that the organisation be broken up. But the BBC’s dominance – which has been growing steadily, as newspaper circulation declines and ITV News loses audience share – doesn’t merit even a mention in the government’s Green Paper on the BBC’s future. Of course if Myerscough is right that ‘the BBC’s institutional bias’ is now effectively in the Tories’ favour, that might explain their indifference to the situation. Meanwhile, the left seems primarily concerned about which of the newspaper moguls has a larger share of a disappearing readership.

David Elstein
London SW15

Like Paul Myerscough, I was struck by the different way the leaders’ speeches to the Labour and Tory Conferences were treated by BBC2’s Daily Politics. The studio guest for Cameron’s speech was Michael Heseltine; for Corbyn’s it was Lance Price, Alastair Campbell’s second in command as Blair’s spin doctor, and for several years now quite removed from the UK political arena running a French B&B. I complained to the BBC and received this reply:

As well as being a highly experienced journalist and political commentator, Lance Price has held significant roles in the past for the Labour Party, most notably being their director of communications and overseeing their 2001 general election campaign. With this in mind, we felt he was well placed to give an informed analysis of Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech. Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader was controversial, even within the party itself. Mr Price clearly stated on the programme that he was ‘not a fan’ of Mr Corbyn’s leadership, but we believe it was important to hear his views, as they represent a significant strand of thinking within the party and among Labour supporters.

It seems especially worrying that the BBC justifies the invitation to Price on the basis that Corbyn’s election was ‘controversial’. Is this not a case of the BBC positioning itself as arbiter of who is fit to be elected as Labour leader, just after record numbers of party members had voted for him?

Rosie Brocklehurst
St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex

Paul Myerscough uses two tropes which are increasingly common among Corbynistas. First, he identifies scepticism as being about an inability to value qualities beyond ‘seeming plausible’. There has been plenty of that, it’s true, and the voters are obviously a shallow lot for being influenced by it, almost as bad as the BBC for covering it. But he discounts the possibility that, for many on the left, the main problem with Corbyn is simply that they disagree with him, and feel that many of his views actually are – as opposed to merely portrayed as – some combination of simplistic, populist, outmoded and distasteful.

Second, Myerscough reserves special disappointment for the Guardian’s new editor and her ‘cadre of electoral realists’. Realism? Could anything be worse? Apparently it could, in this case ‘disdaining’ (i.e. disagreeing with) Corbyn’s supporters and alienating potential readers. Another view might be that the cadre represents the views of people like me who just want the more progressive party to have a chance. It’s hard not to think of the Scottish referendum, where questioning of the Yes campaign risked the most scornful charge of all: lack of optimism.

While Labour are having what I like to think of as a holiday from the voters, the Tories are trying to grab the centre ground. The SNP still appears to be the go-to party for genuine opposition to the government, and its level of organisation stands in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s flat-footed start. Maybe a hopeless media operation is another element of the new politics. Who knows? What is clear is that excuses for the next election are piling up early.

John McGowan
Lewes, East Sussex

Cross-Generational Vaulting

Adam Smyth’s piece on John Aubrey reminded me of sharing, many years ago, a hotel dinner table with the late Conrad Russell (LRB, 8 October). We were talking about Harold Wilson, then lately prime minister, and Conrad began to tell me of a conversation he had had with his father, Bertrand Russell, about Wilson’s personality. However, he said, Bertie was then very old, and Conrad came to realise that they were no longer talking about Wilson, but about what Bertie remembered his grandfather Lord John remembered his grandfather the duke telling him about the personality of the Younger Pitt. I do not remember the latter’s way of speaking being mentioned in our conversation.

I decided, then or thereafter, that there are some stories it would be churlish to disbelieve, and I have several times repeated this reminiscence since Conrad’s death. I am now 91 and memory is unreliable, in what it says you have forgotten no less than in what it says you remember. However, since I seem to be a key figure in the chain of transmitters Adam Smyth has rehearsed, I would like to limit my contribution to what I wish to say now and believe is all I have ever said or claimed to remember. Specifically, I do not remember being told anything about William Pitt’s way of speaking.

J.G.A. Pocock
Baltimore

I have an example of ‘cross-generational vaulting’ to compare with Adam Smyth’s. My uncle, Philip Bell, studied at Queen’s College, Oxford just before the First World War. At that time the president of Queen’s was a very old man who had been brought up in Ireland. A very old man had looked after the orchard on his parents’ property. He had fought at Waterloo. I asked my uncle: ‘What did he say about Waterloo?’ My uncle replied that he had posed the same question to the president of Queen’s, who had replied that even as a young boy he knew of Waterloo, and had asked the same question of the old man in the orchard. His reply was: ‘The drums, the drums.’

Adrian Firth
Viens, France

To Adam Smyth’s team of cross-generational gymnasts could be added Roland Barthes, whose meditation on photography, Camera Lucida, begins with the dizziness of looking history in the face. Barthes is describing his amazement at seeing a photograph of Napoleon’s youngest brother, Jérôme, taken in 1852: ‘Je vois les yeux qui ont vu l’empereur.’

Yasmine Seale
London E8

Do killers like heavy metal?

Andrew O’Hagan insists on characterising mass murderers as heavy metal fans (LRB, 22 October). He imagines a future killer who ‘may be into hurting animals, or like Death Metal music’. Later, prospective killers ‘read Tolkien and swap sci-fi comics, or get into heavy metal’. In fact, none of the murderers O’Hagan mentions in the piece seems to have been into metal, and a recent study from Humboldt State University has found that metal fans are ‘significantly happier in their youth and better adjusted’ than their peers. The Humboldt study builds on an earlier study by researchers at the University of Queensland, which found that extreme music – metal and punk, predominantly – decreases levels of stress and hostility. According to its authors, metal music helps its listeners to ‘explore the full gamut of emotion’ but leaves them ‘feeling more active and inspired’. O’Hagan’s killers seem largely to have been rejects from a culture they aspired to join. Metal fans, in my experience, tend to reject that culture.

Elizabeth O’Shaughnessy
Limerick

Memories of the Fog

At the time of the great fog of December 1952 I was working as a junior clerk in the Counting House of Guy’s Hospital in Bermondsey (LRB, 8 October). It was said that during that week there were more hearses leaving the hospital than ambulances arriving. My own recollection is that, against advice, I left the office during my lunch break. When I returned to my desk and picked up my ruler, I found its outline clearly marked on what had been a sheet of white paper. Ascherson also mentions the animals at the Smithfield Show. Many were prize-winning beasts, so efforts were made to save them from the effects of the soot-laden fog inside the show area: sacks were soaked in whisky to filter the air they were struggling to breathe. A few years later I moved to Exeter, where I was amazed to find that fogs were white. I now live in Canberra, where, very occasionally, the airport is closed for an hour or so because of what I would call a ‘mist’.

Ian Mathews
Canberra

Neal Ascherson’s piece brought back vivid memories of a late-afternoon car trip in London in mid-December 1952. I was being driven home to Watford from my prep school in Kent. My father, a Londoner, knew every short cut and side-street, and always followed his own carefully chosen route through the heart of the city. The gloom was deepening as we emerged from the north end of the Blackwall Tunnel, and after a further five minutes or so we were in an impenetrable smog. My father stopped the car, pulled a white handkerchief from the glove compartment, and told me to get out and run ahead of him, holding the handkerchief well elevated. I was told to ‘follow the kerb’. Not as dangerous as it sounds: we stuck to the side-streets, and moved slowly. The city was eerily silent and seemed empty. Even outside the car you could only see a few feet ahead. My father called out directions through the open window of the car as we approached each intersection. We continued this regimen, my father barking instructions out of the gloom, for two hours or more. The fog lifted as we approached the Hippodrome in Golders Green: I had been jogging for a little under ten miles.

Peter Greenhill
Claremont, Canada

The photograph in the last issue of a goalkeeper peering through the fog in 1945 brought to mind a famous example of the risks of fog to professional sport. On Christmas Day 1937 Charlton Athletic were playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge with their English international, Sam Bartram, in goal. In his autobiography Bartram recalled fog enveloping the ground:

The referee stopped the game, and then, as visibility became clearer, restarted it. We were on top at this time, and I saw fewer and fewer figures as we attacked steadily. I paced up and down my goal-line, happy in the knowledge that Chelsea were being pinned in their own half. ‘The boys must be giving the Pensioners the hammer,’ I thought smugly, as I stamped my feet for warmth. Quite obviously, however, we were not getting the ball into the net. For no players were coming back to line up, as they would have done following a goal. Time passed, and I made several advances towards the edge of the penalty area, peering through the murk. Still I could see nothing. The Chelsea defence was clearly being run off its feet. After a long time a figure loomed out of the curtain of fog in front of me. It was a policeman. ‘What on earth are you doing here?’ he gasped. ‘The game was stopped a quarter of an hour ago.’

John Mitchell
London SE13

Homes in Hackney

Iain Sinclair watches police helicopters circling ‘Hackney’s last vestiges of public housing’ from the ‘infinity’ pool at the top of the Shard (LRB, 24 September). At the last census, 44 per cent of people in Hackney lived in social housing (belonging to the council or to registered social landlords). Despite the sleepy depletion of stock through right-to-buy sales there are still 22,400 units of fully public (council) housing, held in trust for the people of Hackney and available according to need. Though hampered by the government’s refusal to let us borrow to build we are building new, high-quality homes for social rent every year and are consistently among the best-performing local authorities in this respect.

Ned Hercock
Town Hall, London E8
Labour Councillor for Clissold Ward

How to Do Good

Responding to Amia Srinivasan’s review of my book, Doing Good Better, Rajith Dissanayake challenges the effectiveness of distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated nets to prevent malaria (Letters, 8 October). These worries are misplaced. A comprehensive survey published last year in the Malaria Journal found that the overwhelming majority of nets were used for malaria prevention, while fewer than 1 per cent were used for other purposes. In a separate response, Yannis Gourtsoyannis disputes that deworming programmes improve school attendance. It’s true that Aiken et al’s recent replication found some coding errors in Miguel and Kremer’s original study, but Gourtsoyannis’s claim that this study has been ‘debunked’ is inaccurate and misleading. Inaccurate in that the errors identified by Aiken et al do not directly challenge the existence of an effect on school attendance: rather, they challenge the effects on untreated students attending schools within a certain range (between 3 and 6 km). And misleading because the case for deworming programmes doesn’t primarily rest on its effects on school attendance: ultimately it is the remarkable impact that these programmes have on earnings later in life that makes deworming an unusually cost-effective intervention.

William MacAskill
Lincoln College, Oxford

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.