Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — 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.


Vol. 40 No. 13 · 5 July 2018

Search by issue:

The Tower

I recently retired from the London Fire Brigade after 31 years’ service. I attended the Grenfell Tower fire as part of a relief crew on the second day. Andrew O’Hagan discusses the use of the ‘Stay Put’ policy on the night of the fire, with a strong implication that it wasn’t abandoned quickly enough (LRB, 7 June).

‘Stay Put’ is the only policy that can possibly work in the majority of residential high-rise buildings. But it is based on the assumption that the fire will be contained in a single flat or compartmentalised part of the building. Should residents evacuate in the initial stages of a fire, opening all the doors as they go, that would risk the spread of fire and smoke to other floors, as well as creating the potential for crush injuries and hampering the fire crews’ access to the fire floor. This is the reason communal alarms are generally prohibited; individual alarms are fitted to flats because you are only supposed to evacuate the flat affected. If we were to move away from this policy we would increase the likelihood that disaster would be caused instead by encouraging people to evacuate in the initial stages of the fire.

This is why compartmentalisation, building regulations, safety systems, firefighting facilities, maintenance and inspections are so important. They are designed to contain problems when just one or two things go wrong. A catastrophic failure, especially in compartmentalisation, when multiple things go wrong at the same time, to the extent and at the speed they did at Grenfell, is a different situation entirely. Once the lobbies, corridors and the lone stairway were compromised, the task became almost impossible.

The advice given to residents in such circumstances, many of them elderly, or with young children or with mobility issues, would depend on many variables. At any given point during the fire, residents may be in a part of the building that is safe for now but soon won’t be, and fire crews will be trying to reach them and bring them down safely. Alternatively, phone operators and officers may determine that the fire crews will not reach those residents in time, in which case they may advise people to evacuate, only for them to enter several flights of stairs at extreme temperatures, filled with thick black smoke and clogged with hose, equipment and casualties. This poses an almost impossible dilemma/choice involving competing hazards, probabilities and unknowns. The notion that Grenfell could have been evacuated quickly, easily and without the potential for large-scale loss of life is wishful thinking.

There is a deep, wide and systemic problem with building regulations, testing standards, building control, fire safety legislation and maintenance and inspection programmes. There are hundreds of residential blocks to consider, run by dozens of councils, and the problem has developed over twenty years under governments of all political persuasions. It isn’t just a matter of high-rise buildings, of flammable cladding or windows. To focus exclusively on one council or government, specific contractors or suppliers, one socio-economic or any other group, the fire brigade’s response or even this particular building or fire, misses the much bigger underlying problem. That doesn’t mean individuals or organisations should escape blame. But merely to place the blame and continue ignoring the real problem would be a grave mistake.

Tony Sullivan

Andrew O’Hagan quotes the following from my book Big Capital: ‘The zeal with which so many councils are embracing the demolition and rebuild agenda means a rapid reshaping of London is underway … The combination of global capital, government policies designed to kill off social housing and failures in housing benefit are configuring the city.’ There is a mistake here – in the book I say ‘reconfiguring’ – but no matter. ‘All of this is true,’ O’Hagan says, ‘and all of it is crucial, and I wonder whether it has a defining part to play in our understanding of the Grenfell Tower fire and its aftermath.’ Yet he immediately goes on to trivialise my argument by asking: ‘But does this amount to a case for mass murder?’ (He is referring here to the view he attributes to Grenfell activists that the ‘privileged white men’ of the Kensington and Chelsea Council ‘were murdering ordinary people’.)

O’Hagan is creating a false opposition. At issue here is not simply who has direct responsibility for the Grenfell Tower fire but the way in which councils are operating to undermine the democratic process in many parts of London and the UK, not just in Kensington and Chelsea. And while O’Hagan appears to concede that the democratic deficit played a role in fuelling the anger, his overriding argument is that the longstanding hatred of local Tories and this particular council was behind the local response, rather than the exclusion from the political process that many people feel.

In Section 7 of the piece (headed ‘The Facts’ in the online version), O’Hagan continues his defence of the council, and in particular of Rock Feilding-Mellen, Kensington’s former cabinet member for housing, property and regeneration. He is contemptuous of activists and finds ‘nothing to support the view that these councillors were corrupt or were trying to harm residents’. But this is another false opposition. Exclusion from the democratic process is not about actual corruption but the opaque processes that make it possible for councils, developers and lobbyists to make unpopular decisions without public participation. One individual is singled out for alleging that Feilding-Mellen was ‘close friends’ with the former Haringey Council leader Clare Kober, and that their ‘thoughts, schemes and manipulations’ created Grenfell. O’Hagan dismisses the claim for lack of evidence. But a look through information in the public domain quickly reveals that the two shared the same social milieu, courtesy of the lobbying firm Terrapin Communications, which treated both to frequent lunches and dinners. This is not evidence of friendship between Feilding-Mellen and Kober, but the existence of such social events, where deals are done behind closed doors, seems to me a relevant fact in understanding the reconfiguring of the city which is angering so many Londoners. Another fact that O’Hagan does not mention is that Feilding-Mellen has a widely reported, controversial history as a property developer in Scotland and Norfolk, in which his failure to listen to the views of local residents has featured repeatedly. It is this failure to listen, as much as the fact that he is a Tory with an eccentric aristocratic background and a double-barrelled surname, which has made him, in O’Hagan’s words, a ‘modern housing villain’.

Anna Minton
University of East London, E16

Purges and Paranoia

‘To appreciate what has happened in Turkey requires historical perspective,’ Ella George writes, introducing her succinct and deeply disturbing overview of recent events (LRB, 24 May). Yet these events amount to such an egregious assault on human rights that the only valid response is outrage. The real and urgent question is not how we got here but why the international community is, as so often is the case, letting Erdoğan get away with it.

Neil Blackshaw
Barbizon, France


‘It was only as Mussolini came more and more under the influence of Hitler in the mid-1930s,’ Steven Shapin writes, ‘that the serious persecution of Italian Jews began’ (LRB, 24 May). As Michele Sarfatti demonstrates in his book La Shoah in Italia: la persecuzione degli ebrei sotto il fascismo (2005), the regime made an autonomous decision to persecute the Italian Jewish population, motivated by Italy’s domestic political situation. Jewish organisations had resisted fascistizzazione, and even those Jews who had been most supportive of the regime in the 1920s were unlikely to support Mussolini as his foreign policy turned to an alliance with Hitler’s Germany.

The persecution of Italy’s Jews was thus not undertaken as a means to other political ends: anti-Jewishness (antiebraismo) was an end in itself. The goal was, through legislation and propaganda, to eliminate Jews from Italian society and the Italian nation, and thereby to make that society and nation more thoroughly and proudly Aryan. Jews were to be progressively eliminated from every social sphere (schools and universities, government, civil service, medicine, media, commerce etc). Unlike in Germany, this would be done without street brawls and synagogue bombings. Yet it was achieved nevertheless, and Italians were by and large complicit.

On the final day of 1936, Mussolini’s unsigned article ‘Il troppo storpia’ appeared in the regime mouthpiece Il popolo d’Italia. Here he declared that Jews provoked antisemitism because they were too (demonstrably) Jewish, making a chilling play on the common proverb ‘il troppo stroppia’, which can be loosely translated as ‘too much of a good thing’. Mussolini instead uses a rare variant of the proverb; the verb storpiare, which means ‘to cripple, to maim’ and derives from the Latin turpis (‘ugly’), describes not a good thing gone bad, but an ugly, distorted excess – namely, the excess(ive) Jew.

Sarfatti presents the years between 1938 and 1943 as the period of persecution of Jewish rights, and the remainder of the war – when Germany occupied northern Italy – as the period of persecution of Jewish lives. But Mussolini was his own man, and his regime persecuted Italian Jews of its own volition.

Jessica Otey
Charlottesville, Virginia

That was the year that was

In the mid-1960s, M.S. Arnoni, an Auschwitz survivor, published in his monthly magazine of news and opinion, A Minority of One, the complete text of the 1954 Geneva Agreement which ended the French war in Indochina. By its terms, Vietnam would, for two years, be divided into two administrative zones – the term ‘nation-states’ was carefully avoided – and the division was to end with a countrywide election resulting in a single national government. During the two years, there would be free movement of persons across the temporary border, and a postal service too. But the election never took place, since, as Eisenhower admitted, the American-backed government in the South would have lost heavily. The subsequent years did not bring the ‘uneasy peace’ that Patrick Renshaw imagines, but fierce repression of the nationalists in the South, with portable guillotines travelling from town to town (Letters, 7 June). In New York, I heard of helicopters firing on peasant villages – this was around 1959 – but I remained incredulous: I refused to believe that our government would engage in mass killing.

The propaganda line in the quality press – the New York Times – was and still is that communist guerrillas, infiltrating from the North, had attacked the legitimate government of the Republic of Vietnam, and that the US had entered the fight to prevent aggression. Each opponent of the war had his own sudden burst of enlightenment. As well as Arnoni’s reprinting of the Geneva Agreement, I remember I.F. Stone’s newsletter for its patient exposure of government lies. So fifty years later, I don’t need the internet or reference books or a visit to the library to write this letter, even though these days I often can’t remember whether I brushed my teeth in the morning. The text of the agreement – a brief one, perhaps a thousand words – was burned in my consciousness.

Olaf Olsen
Salisbury, Connecticut

Many thanks to Tariq Ali (LRB, 24 May). I hadn’t seen an example of zeugma for ages: ‘In the December 1942 wedding photograph my father was wearing a cheeky smile and a British army uniform.’

Roger Morsley-Smith
London W4

What to Do with a Quarter-Acre

Hera Lindsay Bird must be pulling Duncan McLean’s leg (LRB, 7 June). Young as she is, she must know of New Zealand’s old Labour Day custom of digging a hole in one’s back garden. That’s clearly the origin of Frank Sargeson’s story ‘The Hole that Jack Dug’, and of the poem about her aunt.

McLean’s use of the term ‘gentrification’ to describe the development of Takapuna in Sargeson’s time is misleading. The suburb that grew up around Sargeson’s bach was mainly bungalows built on quarter-acre sections. There was nothing bohemian about Sargeson’s garden. Most of these bungalows would have had large vegetable gardens: that’s what you did with a quarter-acre section.

Sargeson went to the same secondary school as I did. Hamilton Boys’ High School, as it had become by the 1960s (it was co-ed in Sargeson’s day), was proud of the All Blacks it produced but never acknowledged its distinguished literary old boy. Hera Lindsay Bird is not the first to have ignored him.

Rod Edmond
Deal, Kent

Film Redivivus

Eleanor Birne writes that Tacita Dean ‘moved to Los Angeles to be close to the only labs in the world still equipped to preserve 16mm archive’ (LRB, 7 June). In fact there are a number of labs around the world that do preservation work, including, for example, Colorlab in Maryland, 2500 miles from Hollywood. Dean has consistently underplayed the existence of film laboratories, of which there are still several in operation offering 16mm printing and preservation. It doesn’t help the survival of these labs, who do great work, to pretend they don’t exist. It’s also worth mentioning that there are at least thirty labs worldwide that are run by and for artists; there has been a resurgence of Super 8, 16mm and 35mm film-making, though the kind of work being done is often rough and ‘artisanal’ and hence antithetical to Dean’s aesthetic.

Nicky Hamlyn
University for the Creative Arts, Canterbury

Do we have a policy?

Like Conrad Teixeira, when I subscribed to the LRB last year I too noticed the untranslated French (Letters, 10 May). At first, I was amused by what seemed to me a holdover from a certain style of English erudition. But then I decided to take it as an invitation to learn French. I will never achieve fluency, or anything near it, even though according to Duolingo I’m 68 per cent of the way there. I’ve studied it for months now (I take the French lessons for Spanish speakers, to practise my extremely incomplete Spanish knowledge at the same time), and can just about make out the French news tweets that float by my timeline. In addition, Alice Spawls’s majestic essay on the Brontës (LRB, 16 November 2017) and a recommendation from, of all places, Gloria Steinem’s book of 1992 on self-esteem, Revolution from Within, encouraged me finally to read Jane Eyre, and I could follow little Adèle’s patter. Now, rather than skipping over the French-language passages I encounter, I at least attempt to engage with them.

Erika Owens

Unfair to Iceland

Ardis Butterfield finds it ‘strange’ to write the literary history of late medieval Iceland, when ‘nothing of late 14th-century literature … survives in modern Iceland’ (LRB, 26 April). Nothing, that is, except Flateyjarbók, the most sumptuous of all saga manuscripts, written c.1387-94 and containing a panoramic history of the early kings of Norway, interwoven with sagas and tales of Icelandic poets, farmers and the walking dead. And the iconic Möðruvallabók, written a generation or two earlier, the oldest surviving collection of family sagas and the source text for some of Penguin Classics’ best-loved Icelandic titles.

There are plenty of other, smaller literary manuscripts from this period besides these. It won’t do to dismiss them as ‘a few books that recycle 12th and 13th-century writings’ unless we’re to see Malory’s Morte d’Arthur as a mere recycling of older romances. The only thing ‘strange’ about 14th-century Icelandic literature is not the fact that a lot of it survives only in later copies (that’s the norm for most medieval literature), but just how much of it, and of such high quality, was produced by a tiny rural society in the era of the Black Death. When Flateyjarbók was finally shipped home to Iceland in 1971 after years of negotiation with the Danish government, it was accompanied by a full military escort and a large crowd awaited its arrival. That’s a lot of trouble to take for a non-existent literature.

Ralph O’Connor
University of Aberdeen


Terry Eagleton describes the family from which George Bernard Shaw is descended as a ‘decayed branch of the Protestant Ascendancy’ (LRB, 21 June). As a member of that branch, I recognise that it is accurate to say that many members of my father’s family, the Tyrrells, belonged to the Protestant Ascendancy, but I must take issue with that word ‘decayed’. My father, Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, an eminent theologian, was the son of Geraldine Tyrrell (later Lady Hanson), who was, as I understand it, a cousin of Shaw. Geraldine was the daughter of Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, the classical scholar who taught Oscar Wilde at Trinity College Dublin and remained lifelong friends with him. My grandmother corresponded with Shaw on a frequent basis and his work was a huge influence on my father, who insisted we read Shaw’s works as a family on holidays in Ireland. I am just coming to the end of a 34-year career in the NHS and I have two sons and one daughter. I can’t speak for other branches of the family, but this one is flourishing.

Andrew Tyrrell Hanson
Preston, Lancashire

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.