Editor's Comments

In the last issue of the Journal I alerted readers to a change in the format of the Editorial. Alongside a longer, annual Editorial reflecting on the year's work as a whole, each issue will now include brief Comments. Why the change? Readers will be aware that not all journals in our field - as in other fields of scholarship or practice - include Editorials; there is every reason to think that the papers, book reviews and editorial information that a journal publishes speak for themselves and need no introduction. The BJP is no exception.

On occasion, however, something of relevance might be lost without an additional word from the Editor on one or other of the papers. To that end I want to frame the BJP's posthumous publication of Christopher Reeves' reappraisal of Winnicott's The Piggle with a few observations. First of all, the BJP is honouring Reeves' wish that readers return to the original text after reading the first part of his paper, before reading the second part. We are therefore publishing ‘Reappraising….’ across two issues of the Journal: Part I in this issue, and Part II in the next. We encourage you to review The Piggle before the next issue appears. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Angela Joyce, who facilitated the BJP's publication of the paper; and of Margaret Reeves, Reeves' daughter and literary executor, who did detailed work on the text and coordinated the family's engagement with the project. On another note: the patient's voice, as we know, is rarely heard in the published narratives of the field. I was aware that the patient known as The Piggle had been in touch with Christopher Reeves when he was working on the manuscript and I wondered if she might consider making her own comment on it. I am delighted that she was willing to do this, indeed keen to. Readers will find her statement of appreciation and support for ‘Reappraising….’ at the foot of the paper's opening page.

I also want to acknowledge Joe Schwartz's work as Gues