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. 39 No. 18 · 21 September 2017

Search by issue:

Like may as well eat like

‘Never again’, Amia Srinivasen promises, will she indulge in octopus carpaccio, or order any dish of octopus, after her fascinating investigation of these eight-armed ‘sophisticated problem-solvers’ whose complex behaviours have an eerie resemblance to our own, while they remain utterly unlike us (LRB, 7 September). ‘Octopuses,’ she says, ‘are the closest we can come, on earth, to knowing what it might be like to encounter intelligent aliens.’ Her description of the octopus extending an arm to a human, or leading it by the hand, has a touch of Spielberg’s ET. The octopus, like us, is keen on food, and when it reaches into submarine outcrops of rock to extricate a shrimp or a baby crab, it performs a gesture I see a lot at home, whenever my husband rummages with his fingers in a jar of pickles. The octopus, itself a soft-bodied mollusc, has a penchant for … molluscs. So I believe it’s okay – without wishing to egg her on – for Srinivasan to enjoy a plate of octopus now and then, on the grounds that like may as well eat like as unlike. Apparently there’s no stopping us.

Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Diogenes the Cynic (no relation), tells that the philosopher met his end in Corinth while distributing raw octopus to his dogs, one of whom bit him in the tendon. In Appetites for Thought: Philosophers and Food (2015), Michel Onfray gives another version, in which Diogenes fought over the octopus with the dog in question, won the day, ate the prize morsel and promptly died of indigestion. So perhaps we’re at physical as well as moral risk when we eat these complicated creatures.

The terrifying vastness of Erik Pontoppidan’s Kraken, of which Srinivasan writes, struck Kant very forcibly. In his writings on physical geography he calls the octopus ‘the world’s largest animal’. When it rises to the surface of the sea, ‘it is said to have great tines that protrude above it like trees’ and ‘innumerable fish are said to roll down off it.’ He adds judiciously: ‘Its shape is unknown’ – a remark designed to give us the impression that we know a lot more than he did.

Marisol Hutchison
Bruges

Amia Srinivasan’s tentacular essay on octopuses was a treat. She mentions the 2010 EU directive on animal testing, which classified cephalopods with vertebrates, because of their ‘ability to experience pain’. That was 17 years after the UK recognised the sentience of these remarkable animals: in 1993, the then home secretary, Michael Howard, gave the common octopus, Octopus vulgaris, the status of a ‘protected animal’.

Gavin Francis
Edinburgh

‘I fucked it up’

‘It is hard not to conclude that the Raj ended in the worst failure of its whole existence,’ Ferdinand Mount wrote in the last issue, adding: ‘And we might as well admit it’ (LRB, 7 September). One person who did admit it was Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, appointed to oversee Partition. In his autobiography, Life, Love, Laughter, Liberty (2015), the veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Osman recorded a conversation he had with Mountbatten in 1965 in which Mountbatten was frank about how they had got things wrong: ‘I fucked it up,’ he said.

Derek Summerfield
London SE15

Trump’s Republic

Reading Adam Shatz’s piece on Charlottesville I remembered my classmate Donald Trump as a charlatan in college (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) and years later in bankruptcy court when I was a Wall Street banker (LRB, 7 September). Racism, a convenient moniker, is only the tip of the iceberg of his pathology, which will never change. In his campaign for office he had ‘a roaring voice, and it had the trick of inflaming half-wits’, as the journalist H.L. Mencken said of William Jennings Bryan, yet political apologists call them the disaffected electorate; and thanks to the imprudence of the Electoral College, he can now parade his wanton entitlement, much as Mussolini did, chin thrust forward in a mission to restore the Roman Empire. Il Duce wound up hanged from a lamppost. What is Trumpeter’s dream of empire? Certainly not e pluribus unum.

Competence for high office aside, I see the peril we face in government, particularly with Congressional lapdogs such as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell at the helm, and remember Benjamin Franklin’s remark when leaving the Continental Congress in 1790: ‘We have a republic, if we can keep it.’

David Taylor Johannesen
Boston, Massachusetts

‘Not since the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois in 1977 has there been such a brazenly anti-Semitic gathering in an American city,’ Adam Shatz writes. But the notorious Skokie march never actually took place. The neo-Nazi National Socialist Party of America, which split off from George Lincoln Rockwell’s group after his death, fought the issue of its right to march on First Amendment grounds all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour. However, once he’d won the right to march, gaining massive publicity along the way, the founder of the group, Frank Collin, called off the march. The group did hold rallies in Chicago after similar litigious wrangles, but not in Skokie.

A.C. Willment
Ridgewood, New Jersey

Who’s in charge?

Jacob Ecclestone questions whether President Assad and his chums in the Kremlin were responsible for ‘the alleged poison gas attack’ on Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April, echoing the opinions of Seymour Hersh and Theodore Postol that they weren’t (Letters, 27 July). He goes on to say that Postol, a boffin at MIT, was ‘ignored by the mainstream media’.

I reported from London on the poison gas attack for the BBC’s Newsnight on the day it happened. That meant watching hideous videos of men, women and children breathing their last, foam bubbling from their mouths and nostrils, muscles jerking in spasm; the scene that sticks in my mind is of six or seven children lying dead. I argued furiously in New Broadcasting House that we should show as much of this grim material as we could, Ofcom rules about taste and decency permitting. Newsnight goes out after the 9 p.m. watershed, but the piece we broadcast was so grim it couldn’t be shared on the internet lest children watch it. I’ve covered wars since 1988. You can’t fake that depth of evidence, period. For Ecclestone to characterise this crime as ‘alleged’ sticks in the throat. It happened.

So who committed it? The people who live in Khan Sheikhoun, who oppose both Assad and Islamic State, are clear that it was an attack by the regime from the air. That’s worth reporting. Do Syrians who question the regime’s use of force, including chemical weapons, suffer torture and death? Yes, say Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Does the Assad regime use poison gas? Yes, say multiple experts on chemical weapons. Has the Assad regime been caught importing NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) suits from, say, North Korea? Yes, twice. In 2009, the Greek authorities seized 14,000 anti-chemical weapons suits from a North Korean ship heading for Syria; in 2013 a Libyan-registered vessel, the Al En Ti Sar, out of North Korea bound for Syria, was stopped by the Turkish authorities, who seized 1400 rifles and pistols, thirty thousand bullets and anti-chemical gas masks. The weight of evidence points to the Assad regime’s having used chemical weapons against the opposition at Khan Sheikhoun.

John Sweeney
London SE11

Intermittently Chavista

David Lehmann chooses to speculate on my state of mind when I wrote my letter criticising Greg Grandin’s account of Venezuela, rather than to consider my arguments (Letters, 7 September). I did not write it ‘in a fury’, and do not consider my criticisms intemperate. I wrote the letter because I don’t approve of what Lehmann calls Grandin’s ‘even-handedness’: to my mind the balance of judgment comes down heavily against the incompetent, corrupt and authoritarian – now dictatorial – Chavista regime, and rather than look its results in the face Grandin keeps his finger down on the positive side of the scales. That is bias, not even-handedness. Lehmann isn’t correct either in saying that anti-Americanism cannot be overestimated in Latin America. It certainly can be overestimated, and often is, by the North American and European left especially.

Malcolm Deas
Bogotá

The Liveliness of the Dead

Marina Warner’s beautiful review of Thomas Laqueur’s Work of the Dead had me thinking about the insistent presence of the dead in my own childhood – and, I suppose, the childhoods of all those whom Doris Lessing called the Children of Violence (LRB, 17 August). It wasn’t just the absent presence of my mother’s father and brother, killed in the first and second wars (as they were then called, as if there had been no others) but never talked about because, as my mother once confided, ‘You might cry, and if you ever started crying, you’d never be able to stop’; or the fact that one of the odd Christian names I tried to hide from other boys I inherited from my father’s best friend, Acton Jefferies, killed in Italy – a name that hung around my neck like one of the murdered chickens my father used to bind to the necks of errant dogs.

Apart from these family ghosts, there were the ones who haunted my grim little morgue of a prep school, its hall adorned with rolls of the glorious dead. Aravon was a strange relic of Anglo-Ireland, sitting in the midst of Catholic Bray, where the days seemed to be routinely punctuated by chanting processions just outside the walls, all of them honouring the grieving Virgin. There in the Republic, a hundred miles south of the kingdom, we were required to watch the film of the coronation in the school gym, surrounded by the Gardaí, called in to protect us against the men who had recently blown up a cinema in Newry because it had insulted the memory of ‘our Irish dead’ by showing the same loyalist movie. It was many years before I was able to look back and see this dislocated enclave of a largely erased history for what it was, and to understand why an entire dormitory was panelled with the names of the imperial dead, each carved beneath the polished badge of his regiment.

Michael Neill
University of Auckland

‘It is not known,’ Marina Warner writes, ‘who proposed the tomb of the unknown warrior in Westminster Abbey.’ In fact it is known. The idea of the ‘unknown warrior’ was conceived by the Rev. David Railton, MC (1884-1955) early in 1916, after seeing a grave in a garden in Armentières marked by a rough wooden cross bearing the inscription, ‘An Unknown British Soldier’. According to the ODNB, in 1920 Railton enlisted the support of the dean of Westminster, Herbert Edward Ryle, who in turn persuaded Lloyd George to win over a reluctant King George V to the idea of interring an unidentified set of remains in Westminster Abbey, ‘to bring comfort to those who had only a bleak telegram to mark their loved one’s death’.

Jonathan Sawday
Saint Louis University, Missouri

On Murray Bookchin

Wes Enzinna, in his review of Ecology or Catastrophe by Janet Biehl, a book about my father, Murray Bookchin, wrote that Biehl was ‘denied permission by his estate to quote at length from Bookchin’s papers’ (LRB, 4 May). This is not true. When we requested that the statement be corrected, the online version was altered to read: ‘She didn’t have permission from his estate to quote at length from Bookchin’s papers.’

In fact, despite having full access to his papers, Biehl never requested – and certainly was never denied – permission to quote at length from them, much as she never requested to interview anyone in Bookchin’s immediate family.

Debbie Bookchin
New York

Cropped Dogs

Horizontal cropping of the image of Giacometti’s bronze, The Dog, illustrating Jeremy Harding’s review stunted its meaning (LRB, 17 August). Harding aptly quotes Giacometti’s description of the work as a symbolic self-portrait, but only when you see the dog’s swayback body profile can you recognise its echo, noted years ago by Michael Brenson, of the Alpine horizon of Giacometti’s Swiss childhood.

Kenneth Baker
San Francisco

The truncated image was a consequence of a computer glitch, not of an act of barbarism on our part.

The Editors

But they did

Rory Stewart, wondering why certain features of life in the Roman Empire were preserved in some places and not others, writes that ‘wealthy Londoners could, like the Romans, have imported olive oil, just as they imported wine … But they didn’t’ (LRB, 16 February). But they did. In the 17th century olive oil was used by some of the English elite to dress salad. It was sold in London by Italian warehousemen and advertised in the press. It apparently fell out of favour in the first half of the 20th century before being rediscovered by Elizabeth David.

Hugo Blake
Royal Holloway, University of London

The Meeting of the Waters

John Barrell’s piece on ‘The Meeting of the Waters’ brought to mind my father’s first wife, a politically engaged Irish woman, whom he married in 1922 (LRB, 27 July). She told him how, at a local council meeting, a woman in dispute with a male councillor said: ‘I wouldn’t piss in the same field as you for fear the two streams should meet.’

Joseph Nuttgens
Blandford, Dorset

Against Independence

It is disappointing that Gary Wilder treats my review of his book as a criticism of Césaire and Senghor, when it was meant as a qualified critique of Wilder’s own commentary on them (Letters, 7 September). He claims that I ‘dismiss’ them as ‘imperial apologists’. In fact, I described Césaire as ‘a magnificent anti-colonial rhetorician’, and did not indicate personal approval of any of the criticisms I reported of Senghor. Neither did I argue that their views were ‘characterised by naivety’, as Wilder claims, but precisely the opposite. I wrote that his ‘reading of Senghor and Césaire … challenges the idea that they were cynical – or naive’.

The central question I raised in my review was not whether dreams of ‘exploding the republic by creating a transcontinental association of self-governing communities’ were sufficiently radical or anti-imperialist in theory, but whether they would have worked in the context of what we know about that historical moment. Questions of political strategy are, as Wilder sees it, ‘reductive’. For those involved in the anti-colonial struggle, they couldn’t be dismissed so easily. ‘Given global capitalism and imperial politics,’ as Wilder puts it, most people across the colonised world understood that ‘de-linking from the West was impossible.’ But recognising that fact, and taking into account the indissoluble histories of coloniser and colonised, did not inevitably lead to the type of political project he outlined.

The question has always been how, exactly, to rectify what the Ghanaian nationalist J.W. de Graft-Johnson called ‘the disequilibrium of human destinies’ that is one of the enduring legacies of the colonial relationship. Other visions existed alongside those in Wilder’s book, including forms of anti-colonial federation and, yes, nationalism that also aimed to achieve ‘socialist, democratic and multiracial’ polities and create an ‘alternative global order’. Needless to say, these possible ways out of empire were all fraught with risks and difficulties. But wouldn’t it make sense to present an accurate view of the range of possibilities, instead of painting imperial federalism as the only visionary project going?

We shouldn’t accept the strange binary that Wilder creates – and repeats once again in his letter – between imperial federalism and what he calls ‘methodological nationalism’. In reality, forms of transnational federalism can end up looking distinctly nationalistic (historical dreams of linking the UK and its former Dominions in a ‘Greater Britain’ are a good example), while nationalisms can work in the service of transnational and global ambitions (think of Cuba). Many of the anti-imperialist projects Wilder dismisses as ‘nationalist’ were, like Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanism, actually deeply transnational and federal in orientation.

Musab Younis
Oxford

Neatly Folded

Raymond Clayton writes about antique medical texts, and the continuing pertinence of The Practice of Physick from 1658 (Letters, 13 July). My first recourse isn’t to the internet, which can worry you nearly to death if you’re feeling off-colour, but to a battered 1976 paperback of Symptoms, edited by Sigmund Stephen Miller (582 pages, but a pocketbook nonetheless). It attempts to help people self-diagnose not by disease, but by symptoms, although the two factors are cross-indexed. Its science is sometimes outmoded but its commonsense approach is excellent. The slim chapter at the end, written by Miller himself, concludes: ‘Eventually we are all caught by that dark hunter, but those of us who are constantly active and constantly moving around are more difficult targets and less easily caught.’

Peter Smith
Linlithgow, West Lothian

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.