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. 38 No. 14 · 14 July 2016

Search by issue:

Tall Lady, Eating Sandwiches

How refreshing to come across Prince Hermann von Pückler-Muskau, the ultimate cosmopolitan European, in Nicholas Penny’s piece about his Letters of a Dead Man (LRB, 16 June). As a child I read his limpid pastoral account of early 18th-century Ireland with tears in my eyes. Heiress hunter and conceptual landscape gardener, Pückler-Muskau pops up in the most unlikely places. Recently, while trying to decipher Rilke’s auto-fiction The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge, I spotted a sly mention of him. Rilke/Malte remembers his governess falling asleep over Bettina von Arnim’s Goethe’s Correspondence with a Child. Bettina in her twenties exchanged letters with the poet, turning sixty, and rewrote his side to make it more interesting. Bettina published the Correspondence after Goethe’s death, and annotated the book with ‘rich pickings from some of his less discreet friends, not least Pückler-Muskau’. It was a succès de scandale. The prince wasn’t best pleased, but honour was satisfied when she arranged that the cash-strapped Pückler-Muskau be made the patron-by-name of a newly created confection, a tutti-frutti ice cream. In a postscript Bettina describes Goethe’s evasive response when she suggested that Beethoven and he get together with Pückler-Muskau to create an open-air spectacle of Germanic genius. She went on to become a social reformer (‘in a small way’). Her pamphlets in support of the sick and poor were backed by practical philanthropy – she always carried smelling salts in her purse and loose coins in her socks.

Still Bettina wasn’t finished with Goethe; she designed and commissioned a giant marble statue of him to outdo the many that had already been erected in the cities of Germany. The Great Man sits like Jupiter on his throne in classical vines, one hand holding a wreath, the other a lyre raised aloft. An infant angel stands on his lap, strumming the strings. Pückler-Muskau knew how miffed Bettina was that Goethe never wrote a sonnet to her. A fragment of the sculpture that survived in the backyard of the Weimar Museum was resurrected for a Faust exhibition in 1909, the year Malte Laurids Brigge was published.

Augustus Young
Port-Vendres, France

Was Prince Pückler-Muskau as gullible as Nicholas Penny suggests? The story of a girl being decapitated by a falling rock appears in George Young’s History of Whitby (1817). Penny’s reference to Pickwick Papers is apt: the elegance and matter-of-factness of Young’s description of the gruesome event gives an insight into the roots of Dickens’s own style. This is Young’s final sentence: ‘A splinter [of rock], which, by striking against a ledge had acquired a rotatory motion, fell from the cliff, and hitting one of the girls on the hinder part of the neck, severed her head from her body in a moment, and the head rolled to a considerable distance along the scar.’

Roger Osborne
Snainton, North Yorkshire

On the subject of Jingle’s first meeting Pickwick, Nicholas Penny’s chronology is bad: it cannot have been in 1827. Jingle brags about having ‘banged the fieldpiece and twanged the lyre’ in the July Revolution, which took place in 1830 and replaced Charles X with Louis Philippe.

Ian Gowans
London W14

Nicholas Penny writes: Dickens provided a footnote, obviously realising his error but liking the phrase: ‘A remarkable instance of the prophetic force of Mr Jingle’s imagination; his dialogue occurring in the year 1827, and the Revolution in 1830.’

Who’s in charge of the BBC?

In his reflections on the government White Paper that sets out proposals for the future of the BBC Dan Hind doesn’t mention that the changes in BBC governance – a new unitary board and external regulation by Ofcom – were what the BBC itself recommended (LRB, 16 June). The same is true of open competition for BBC content commissioning: the BBC offered that in exchange for its in-house production arm being allowed to compete for commissions from other broadcasters. This is nothing to do with Thatcherism, just a matter of optimising the creative potential of thousands of talented production staff.

Ofcom, as it happens, has for ten years been empowered to give its view on the market impact of proposed BBC ventures: so no change there. And the fact that Ofcom will now adjudicate on alleged breaches of BBC impartiality explains why there was no point in the White Paper discussing research from Cardiff, or elsewhere: all allegations of that type, including those from disgruntled Tory backbenchers, can in future be submitted for Ofcom’s verdict.

As for the ‘independently funded news consortia’, Ofcom proposed in 2009 to replace ITV regional news provision. This was a belated response to ITV’s severe cuts in such coverage after the 2008 advertising downturn – cuts Ofcom was unable to prevent. The idea was not ‘quietly dropped’: it was abandoned after the Conservative opposition noisily announced its rejection of the idea, making continued expense on the project ahead of the 2010 election impossible to justify.

Hind would like to see the BBC funding independent local journalism, but there is little prospect of the BBC itself handing over licence fee funds on a contestable basis to independent consortia, with outcomes decided by viewers and listeners voting their preferences. The BBC has offered to inject resources into local journalism under its own control; the regional press are – mostly – hostile to this, and want any money coming from the BBC to be allocated according to their preferences. The compromise that has been reached may offend Hind – ‘giving public money to private monopolies’ – but it gets an important hostile lobbying group off the BBC’s back, relatively cheaply.

David Elstein
London SW15

Trans

Clearly, Rachael Padman and Jay Prosser exist (Letters, 16 June). It is to be hoped that they enjoy well-being, peace and love in their lives. They are part of a movement that has been remarkably successful at the level of law and popular culture. They can surely feel affirmed by Jacqueline Rose’s essay – an exemplar of her talent for inquiry and ambivalence (LRB, 5 May). It isn’t their existence that troubles many feminists. Women are all too familiar with the slur that we are not really there, that we are not real women because of our shape, style, sexual orientation or politics. But neither sexism nor feminist challenges to certainties about inherent femininities or masculinities ever stopped women in general – including transwomen – from existing. The philosopher Jane Clare Jones touches a nerve in Trouble and Strife. For ‘many non-trans women’, she writes, ‘the idea that the essence of being a woman resides in “feeling like" a woman is not so much wrong as incomprehensible’. To insist that challenging gender is transphobic, she continues, ‘functions to close down discourse by rendering feminism’s long-held analysis of gender unsayable’.

Debate is not a death sentence and feeling offended is not the same as feeling or being exterminated. There is a human right to life, but there is no right to be not offended. As Gary Younge has put it, ‘being offended is not a political position.’ My challenge is not to trans people, but to the authoritarian turn exemplified by no-platforming, supported by the National Union of Students, and by proscribing feminist challenges to gender – the crux of its emancipatory project.

Padman and Prosser: do you really want to be part of a movement that aims to shut women up – including transwomen – and to make gender critique an offence? You work in universities, the locus of no-platforming, which is bleeding into other arenas. Do you want to participate in reducing students’ participation in democratic debate?

Beatrix Campbell
Beverley, East Riding

Rachael Padman argues that ‘social animals’ possess the ‘ability to recognise others as “my sort" or “not my sort"’. This is an important part of how we understand ourselves. Nonetheless, if it is impossible for Padman to accept ‘anyone else, who can’t see inside my head, telling me that I am mistaken about who I am’, the same is true for others, including those of us who experience gender not as a form of biologically deterministic coding, but as a location within a social hierarchy. If some of us identify ‘my sort’ as ‘those who have undergone a particular form of embodied experience and social conditioning’ it is not for Padman to tell us we are not who we say we are.

That gender functions as a social hierarchy rooted in the perception of reproductive difference is a demonstrable fact. It is demonstrated by 47,000 female deaths annually due to unsafe abortion; by 830 deaths daily due to preventable complications of pregnancy; by the abortion of female foetuses and abandonment of baby girls leading to distorted sex ratios in countries across the globe. Both Padman and Jay Prosser conflate a failure to acknowledge a person’s self-perception as an objective political reality with denying a person’s ‘right to exist’. In the case of millions of women and girls, however, the denial of the right to exist is literal. If words matter for some, they matter for everyone, and it has to be recognised that the needs of some are greater than those of others.

Victoria Dutchman-Smith
Cheltenham

Terrorist Novels

Dinah Birch wonders, along with many teachers of literature, why students persist in being fascinated with spin-offs of the classic Gothic novels (LRB, 16 June). Her reading questions whether the influence of the French Revolution is sufficient to explain the ‘riotous invention’ of Matthew Lewis’s The Monk. It may help to explain the sexual violence of that novel to consider facts that have always been in plain view. All four of the first Gothic novelists – Horace Walpole, William Thomas Beckford, Lewis and Ann Radcliffe – were significantly involved with plantation slavery and/or its abolition, the great cause of the day. All three men, highly privileged, were gay or bisexual in an era when homosexuality was punishable by hanging.

Lewis straddled both sides of the abolition controversy, at times with extreme discomfort. In his successful play The Castle Spectre, the character Hassan is an African kidnapped into slavery. He pleads his humanity in eloquent speeches that echo The Merchant of Venice. Lewis was suspected of speaking out in favour of the Haitian Revolution, an almost unthinkably radical position. In his last term as MP he also spoke in favour of abolition. But when his father died, he inherited two sugar plantations in Jamaica, and ‘abandoned the stage for sugar’, as Byron put it.

Beckford’s fortune (he was the wealthiest man in England) derived from his immense Jamaican holdings in sugar and slaves. Walpole, son of England’s first prime minister and head of the government that boosted the activities of the ‘castles’ or slaving entrepôts of the Gold Coast, wrote scathingly against slavery in his witty letters long before the issue became fashionable. And Radcliffe, abandoned as a child and as a woman necessarily disprivileged, grew up in the circle of the Wedgwoods, who manufactured the first political badge, showing a kneeling slave in chains under the legend ‘Am I Not a Man and a Brother?’

I would argue that the invention of the Gothic novel – then called the ‘terrorist novel’ – owes as much to the confluence of these factors as those usually cited. Gothic literature deals with outrages against humanity by invoking supernatural agents to avenge those who have suffered in a world devoid of justice. It is not hard to see why this scenario, as well as its originating psychological predicament – namely, being simultaneously highly privileged and yet legally targeted and suppressed – might resonate with young people today.

Wendy Walker
New York

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.