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. 41 No. 18 · 26 September 2019

Search by issue:

Apropos

The following entry in my (unpublished) diary for 22 June 2009 seems appropriate to the moment:

‘The big story of course is the election of the speaker. I had agreed to nominate Margaret Beckett because there’s something about John Bercow I don’t understand. But as I thought about it over the weekend I decided that Margaret Beckett or George Young were speakers for the House of Commons looking inwards to itself and its own. Bercow for all his faults was a speaker for outside and for the people even though he has many many faults and question marks over him.

‘I went yesterday to speak to the Board of Deputies of British Jews at the National Union of Teachers headquarters off Euston Road. It was like speaking to an NUJ Congress with lots of energetic and active people with aggressive views on lots of issues. I made the point that the Daily Mail was a permanently xenophobic paper picking on Poles today as it picked on Jews in the 1930s. And I gave as an example a Mail on Sunday article attacking Bercow which described him as “oily" – one of the traditional slur adjectives used against Jews.

‘The Tory establishment and Tory MPs are very hostile to Bercow and I fear that there is some unconscious or possibly even some conscious antisemitism in that reaction. At any event, after the second ballot for the speaker I saw Bercow and Julian Lewis standing in the Members’ Lobby by themselves just outside the doors that lead into the chamber. I went up to chat to them and straightaway both were asking me how John’s speech, which was quite cheeky with a good imitation of Peter Tapsell and a joke at the end about his being rather small but he could grow into the job, had gone. I said it was fine, fine. And then of course it hit me that Julian and John are both London Jews who have thrown their lot in with the Conservative Party and tried to please it by being very right-wing and anti-European and anti-communist. But the Conservative Party only has a limited toleration for pushy Jews. Julian and John are wonderfully fluent on their feet, able to rattle out whole sentences and paragraphs without any break at all. And yet neither has been given any real promotion or preferment. Minor front bench jobs after many years of actually being much better as back bench MPs … But in the end the old Etonian Anglican Tory Party isn’t gonna find much space for the old Estonians. So instead they make a power grab for what they can get because of the disaster of the expenses and the incompetence of Michael Martin, namely, the speakership. And it comes off as Bercow is elected on the second ballot. Straightaway the Daily Mail goes into overdrive to denounce and trash him as incompetent and a fiddler, a cheat, not really a good MP, perhaps not even English. In other words, Jewish. The ghastly, evil Quentin Letts who destroyed Michael Martin’s confidence by calling him “Gorbals Mick" doesn’t quite hit Bercow by calling him “John Jewboy" but the implication is there. It’s at times like this that I really hate British Conservatism.’

Denis MacShane
London SW1

Masada

Josephine Quinn writes: ‘In 1976 Edward Luttwak in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire tried to explain [the huge Roman effort in Masada] as a lesson to others contemplating revolt: “The Romans would pursue rebellion even to mountain tops in remote deserts to destroy its last vestiges regardless of cost"’ (LRB, 12 September). ‘If so,’ Quinn continues, ‘other historians have pointed out, it is strange that not a single surviving Roman inscription or other document mentions the episode.’

I am surprised by this, since the non-survival of any inscription is surely irrelevant. Quinn and I and the world have known the story of Masada not from tenuous epigraphic survivals but from the book that Josephus wrote in Rome while on the imperial payroll as a de facto propagandist. Its central theme was precisely the irresistible tenacity demonstrated by the Romans in the reduction of Masada. The book wasn’t written in the author’s Aramaic or Hebrew but in the imperial language, Greek, so that the warning could resonate. We can infer that the Josephus text was published in many copies because its survival did not depend on an attenuated chain of transmission as with most other Roman texts.

Incidentally, those ‘other historians’ who could not find the unnecessary evidence are not idiosyncratic but rather fashionably ‘woke’, and therefore must reject a priori the notion that at Masada or anywhere else the Romans could pursue purposeful strategic aims – which they take to be an impossibility for ignorant, violent men obsessed with the pursuit of booty and glory.

Edward Luttwak
Chevy Chase, Maryland

Safety First

Helen McCarthy’s review of Sarah Knott’s history of mothering – with its privileging of anecdote, and determination to ‘uncouple the mother-child dyad’ – reminded me of a vignette I encountered in Jenny Uglow’s In These Times, about the British home front during the Napoleonic Wars (LRB, 12 September). The novelist Maria Edgeworth, unmarried at thirty, was a year older than her (third) stepmother, Frances, to whom she became closely attached, describing her as her ‘beloved friend and mother’. In June 1799, the family was staying with friends in Bristol when Frances gave birth: ‘At nine minutes before six this evening, to my great joy, my little sister Fanny came into this world,’ Maria wrote to an aunt shortly afterwards. It was her task to proudly bear the baby downstairs to show to her (and Maria’s own) father, but the stairs were uncarpeted and appeared suddenly treacherous. Frances described what happened next:

When she had descended a few steps a panic seized her, and she was afraid to go either backwards or forwards. She sat down on the stairs, afraid she should drop the child, afraid that its head would come off, and afraid that her father would find her sitting there and laugh at her; till, seeing the footman passing, she called ‘Samuel’ in a terrified voice, and made him walk before her backwards down the stairs till she safely reached the sitting room.

Fiona Gray
Perth

A Craving for Action

Thomas Meaney explores the connection between the growth of white nationalism and the effects of the Vietnam War on white soldiers returning home (LRB, 1 August). He emphasises the racial divide they came to know in the army. A separate cause of the movement may have been a craving for some violent stimulus commensurate with the excitement of war itself. The correlation between US combat experience and white nationalism is likely to be just as strong, for the same reason, among veterans of more recent wars. Therapists working with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have noticed a pattern of bewildered non-assimilation to civilian society, which the soldiers often trace to the love of action and danger they learned in wars. Many join the police – the hierarchical structure is familiar and reassuring – but some find it too sedentary. The uncertain legal status of the vigilante groups may add to the sense of danger and their appeal.

David Bromwich
North Haven, Connecticut

Memories of Leavis

Robert Fothergill mentions that F.R. Leavis had ‘little or nothing to say’ about contemporary writers (LRB, 12 September). That called to mind a rare, rather revealing instance of his having something to say about one of them, at least. Kingsley Amis, in his memoirs, writes that ‘I did, I believe, once have the honour of passing him, open-necked shirt and all, in King’s Parade.’ He goes on to recall that, on the subject of Amis’s college and its attitude to Cambridge parking problems, Leavis apparently said: ‘Peterhouse can’t expect to be taken seriously about anything now that it’s given a scholarship to a pornographer.’

Bob Jope
Torbay

Robert Fothergill writes that undergraduates arriving at Cambridge in 1958 were ‘the first mostly not to have National Service’. He may have avoided it, but the final year for National Service conscription was 1960, meaning that as late as 1962 there were freshmen who had been in uniform.

Derek Robinson
Bristol

No Faster Bird

Jon Day writes: ‘There are faster birds – peregrine falcons, the pigeon’s main predator, can reach two hundred miles per hour on the stoop – but none can fly horizontally, under its own power, as quickly as a pigeon’ (LRB, 4 April). I loved this unlikely fact, which has become part of my children’s education. But in the LRB of 15 August Katherine Rundell says of swifts that ‘they are the swiftest of all birds in level flight (a peregrine can outstrip them in a dive, but they can outfly her in a flat race).’ I should never have believed that stuff about the pigeon.

Rollo Whately
London SW1

Our Alien Planet

‘It may be symbolically significant for the UK government to declare a “climate emergency",’ Francis Gooding writes, ‘but what is urgently needed are vast, co-ordinated programmes of decarbonisation’ (LRB, 1 August). Strictly speaking, Gooding’s statement is incorrect. The government declared nothing. It was Parliament which in May passed a symbolic motion declaring a climate and environment emergency after the government met with Extinction Rebellion and decided not to oppose the motion. What we really need is for the government to declare an emergency and a plan to address it, starting with its next budget. This will not happen unless there is vast, co-ordinated public pressure: that is what Extinction Rebellion is planning to create in October.

Rupert Read
Norwich

Utopian about the Present

Having grown up with the social housing estate Dawson’s Heights on the horizon, I was astonished to hear from Christopher Turner that it is modelled on an Italian hill village (LRB, 4 July). Practically anyone – at least in areas south-east of them – will tell you they are supposed to look like battleships. They will also tell you they are ‘apparently very nice, once you get inside’.

Janet Wood
London SE23

The Student Loan Sell-Off

As a securitisation lawyer who has tried (and failed) many times to explain the concept of securitisation to others, I tip my hat to Andrew McGettigan for his lucid description of the UK student loan sale (LRB, 12 September). There are just a couple of small inaccuracies in his otherwise spot-on account. It isn’t quite right to describe the most secure tranches of notes in the loan sale as being ‘the ones consisting of loans associated with the lowest risk of default’. First, securitisation notes don’t exactly ‘consist’ of loans – rather, repayments from the securitised loans are used to pay off the principal and interest of the notes. Second, every tranche of notes is associated with all the loans being securitised – there is no direct link between the riskier note tranches and the individual riskier loans. What makes one tranche in a securitisation more ‘secure’ than another (rated higher by rating agencies, pricier and offering a lower return) is its position in what’s called in the trade a ‘waterfall’: on a regular basis, all repayments received from all the securitised loans come in and are applied to pay interest (and eventually to repay the principal) first on the highest-ranked tranche of notes, then the next highest, and so on until the money from the loan repayments runs out.

James Tanner
London, W14

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.