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. 24 · 14 December 2017

Search by issue:

The Hunter-Gatherers Were Right

Steven Mithen writes that ‘the perfectly formed city-state is the ideal, deeply ingrained in the Western psyche, on which our notion of the nation-state is founded, ultimately inspiring Donald Trump’s notion of a “city" wall to keep out the barbarian Mexican horde’ (LRB, 30 November). In the Politics, a text that really was ingrained in the psyche of Western undergraduates from the late 13th century until very recently, Aristotle says that a city-state isn’t achieved merely by a group living in the same place, and ‘certainly not because it is enclosed by walls, since a single wall could be built around the Peloponnese’. A city-state, so far as Aristotle is concerned, is a moral community with a shared notion of justice, and it can go on the move. As one 16th-century commentator on the Politics put it: as long as it keeps the same form – that is, the same constitution, with the same order of offices and the same idea of justice – France would still be France ‘even if driven to India’. There is much that this vision of the city-state is responsible for, as the history of imperialism attests. Aristotle was certainly concerned to distinguish his polis from the so-called barbarian ethnos (the ‘nation’, in most modern translations), and was preoccupied with Greek moral superiority. But even he saw that while you can put a wall around a city, you don’t make a city with a wall.

Sophie Smith
University College, Oxford

The President and the Bomb

Adam Shatz is right to pose the question asked by Andrew Bacevich, after Harold Hering in 1973: ‘Why have we entrusted one imperfect individual [the president] with the power to blow up the planet?’ (LRB, 16 November). But it is more important to continue to ask what we can do to create a world in which the threat of nuclear annihilation does not exist.

There are currently 15,000 nuclear warheads in existence, 95 per cent of which are in the US and Russia. (The UK has about 215 warheads, though it relies heavily on the US to maintain them. Each of the four UK nuclear submarines carries 16 Trident missiles at any given time.) The use of as few as a hundred Hiroshima-sized bombs, small by contemporary standards, would loft at least five million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere, causing climate disruption across the earth and reducing food production to such an extent that two billion people would be at risk of starvation. A large-scale nuclear war would kill hundreds of millions of people directly and cause unimaginable environmental damage. It would also cause temperatures across the planet to drop to levels not seen since the last ice age. Under these conditions the vast majority of humans would starve; it is possible our species would become extinct.

We are assured that these arsenals exist solely to guarantee that they are never used, but there have been many occasions when nuclear-armed states have made preparations to use them, and war has been averted at the last minute. ‘In the end, we lucked out,’ the former US defence secretary Robert McNamara said, speaking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. ‘It was luck that prevented nuclear war.’ Our current nuclear policy is essentially to hope that our good luck lasts, even as climate change puts increased stress on communities around the world, increasing the likelihood of conflict. Plans to spend more than $1 trillion to enhance the US nuclear arsenal, and £205 billion to renew the Trident missile and submarine systems in the UK, will exacerbate these dangers by fuelling a global arms race, and will divert resources that could be used to secure people’s well-being.

On 10 December the Nobel Committee will award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, for its work in drawing attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its efforts to bring about a prohibition of such weapons. In July, 122 nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The US and the UK should do the same, and place nuclear disarmament at the centre of their national security policies.

Michael Orgel
Edinburgh

Henry Kissinger reportedly issued no fewer than a dozen nuclear threats to North Vietnamese negotiators, Adam Shatz writes. The North Vietnamese then proceeded to win the war decisively. America and its allies went on to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, the disaster in Iraq might have been avoided had the first war there – when Kuwait was a legitimate casus belli – been pursued to its conclusion. Also America has successfully invaded places like Grenada, a country with defences at least as fearsome as those of the average English market town. America is the richest and most heavily armed state in history, but even its most loyal advocates would have trouble pointing to a string of great martial successes in the period in which it has had nuclear weapons. An aspect of those weapons that should, perhaps, be considered is the way they drain the strength of the conventional forces of the nations that possess them. If troops establish a beachhead and burn their boats, they are compelled to fight or to die. But nuclear weapons function psychologically as a fleet of landing craft moored safely out of range in the bay, which can be called on if the war goes badly. There they float, quietly consuming treasure.

Adrian Bowyer
Foxham, Wiltshire

The Rules of Augury

Michael Kulikowski writes that the ‘spaces necessary for augury lie behind the consistent Roman preference for the anticlockwise over the clockwise’, and that Rome’s foundation was thought to have begun from a point on the Arx (one of two peaks of the Capitoline Hill) and to have looked off south-southeast – the usual augural orientation (LRB, 16 November). Even when Augustus later divided the city into 14 numbered districts, the same orientation applied. But when in May 1928 the major consular roads radiating from Rome (whose milestones are still measured from the Arx) were classified and given strada statale (SS) numbers, someone neglected to follow the rules. Taking Rome’s GRA ring-road as a clock-face for reference, SS1 exits the city at 8 o’clock, SS2 at 11, SS3 at 12, SS4 (along which I live) at 1, SS5 at 3, SS6 at 4, SS7 at 5 and SS8 at 7 o’clock – clockwise and beginning from south-west. No doubt this reckless disregard for the rules of augury infuriated the gods and explains the downfall of the Fascist regime less than twenty years later.

Geoffrey Watson
Rome

More than Anyone Else

Madeleine Schwartz writes that on Christina Stead’s return to Australia, after an absence of forty years, ‘no one wanted a cranky, alcoholic old woman as a house guest’ (LRB, 2 November). In fact Stead’s younger brother Gilbert and his wife had a flat built onto their home for her. Stead stayed there but found it unsuitable. At a lunch given for her at the Washington Club in Sydney, she confided to a stranger, Heather Stewart, that she needed a place to stay. Stewart took her home and cared for her for months. Stead also stayed with her brother David and his wife, Doris, and also with her sister Weeta. Friends in the literary community arranged for Stead to stay for several months at University House in Canberra. Stead was staying with another stranger, Helena Berenson, when she was taken to Balmain Hospital, where she died on 31 March 1982. This is all in Hazel Rowley’s biography of Stead, published in 1993.

Incidentally, the title of the novel Letty Fox: Her Luck, Stead’s nephew told me, was her joke, which she translated as ‘Letty Fucks a Lot.’

Kate Llewellyn
Hove, South Australia

The Black Square

T.J. Clark, writing about Russian revolutionary art, mentions a photograph, reproduced with the article, of a group of military men under a banner with a black square on it (LRB, 16 November). As all of the figures in the foreground are wearing epaulettes, it can’t be the Red Army in 1920, as Clark conjectures, because epaulettes were outlawed in Soviet Russia in December 1917 and not reinstated until 1941. Searching online, I have found the image included in a selection from a regimental album for the 39th Tomsk Infantry Regiment, where it is labelled ‘Officers on a rally, 1917’. Nevertheless, as Clark says, the banner itself remains a mystery.

Petr Favorov
Moscow

The Road to Reading Gaol

Colm Tóibín writes that when Oscar Wilde was released from prison, he ‘gave the manuscript [of De Profundis] to his friend Robert Ross, who had two copies made’ (LRB, 30 November). ‘He sent one to Lord Alfred Douglas; the other he later lodged in the British Museum. Sections from Ross’s copy were published in 1905 and in 1908. The complete version, based on the original manuscript, wasn’t published until 1949.’ The facts are that Wilde gave the manuscript to Ross with the instruction that two typed copies should be made. Ross sent one of these to Lord Alfred Douglas (who, incidentally, claimed that he never received it). Ross had the manuscript to hand, not just his typed copy, when he published excerpts in 1905 and 1908. In 1909 he presented the manuscript to the British Museum on condition that no one be allowed to see it for fifty years. He eventually bequeathed the second typed copy to Wilde’s son, Vyvyan Holland.

Holland published a ‘first complete and accurate version’ in 1949. However, having no access to the manuscript, he took the text from his typed copy. This contained a number of errors: misreadings of Wilde’s handwriting, misprints and omissions. The first truly complete edition, based on the manuscript, was published in 1962 in The Letters of Oscar Wilde, edited by Rupert Hart-Davis. On the occasion of the centenary of Wilde’s death in 2000 the British Library published a facsimile of the manuscript with an introduction by his grandson, Merlin Holland. Ross entitled his 1905 edition De Profundis. Wilde himself called it Epistola: In carcere et vinculis – ‘A letter from prison and in chains.’

Donald Mead
Oscar Wilde Society, London SW20

Tony Harrison

It is possible that the burning sense of outrage that fuelled much of Tony Harrison’s poetry, as written about by Blake Morrison, did not spill over into all parts of his life (LRB, 30 November). In 1984 I enthusiastically attended a reading he gave in Leeds from his Selected Poems. Afterwards I approached him, clutching a copy for his signature, and tentatively mentioned that things had changed at his old school. He wrote on the flyleaf, ‘To the headmaster of LGS, with no hard feelings.’

Anthony Verity
London SE23

Where Am I?

Thomas Jones refers to our innate capacity for forming ‘cognitive maps’, an aptitude that GPS technology may be eroding at the neurological level (LRB, 16 November). ‘Cognitive mapping’ was precisely the term first used by Fredric Jameson in the 1980s to describe the intellectual activity that would counter the social and spatial disorientation of postmodernity. Jameson saw our spatial confusion as we wandered around metropolises like Los Angeles as a symptom of our inability to grasp the workings of a globalised capitalism – leaving the prospects for concerted political action very bleak indeed.

Jake Soule
Duke University, North Carolina

At the end of a recent satnav car journey my five-year-old grandson, Laurie, asked: ‘Is this our destiny?’

Philip Stevens
Taunton, Somerset

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.