Editor's Comments

The rich papers and reviews in this issue speak for themselves, but there are perhaps two Comments to make. First of all, with this issue of the Journal we complete the posthumous publication of Christopher Reeves' study of Winnicott's The Piggle, preserving the author's wish that the paper be presented in two parts (Reeves, M., 2015, p. 155). We hope that readers will have had an opportunity, since Part I was published three months ago, to read the text of The Piggle ‘from beginning to end, in order to ensure the proper sense of “clinical dialogue” that Winnicott so desired to engage in with his readers' (Reeves, C., 2015, p. 189). This will enable readers to approach Part II, Reeves’ critical analysis of the case history, with their own engagement with the case in mind. I want once again to acknowledge the work of Angela Joyce and Margaret Reeves in bringing the paper to publication; and to draw readers' attention once again to The Piggle's statement of appreciation and support for the paper, which she recognizes as ‘authentic and original’ (this issue, p. 285).

Secondly, the Journal's Prize in memory of our distinguished colleague Rozsika Parker is fast becoming established in the field, and is drawing in international as well as national submissions with a focus on creativity in clinical, theoretical or applied work. The winning papers in the 2014 competition are published in this issue. Rebecca Stone (Student Path, New York), in a study of Toni Morrison's Beloved, argues that ‘the novel's depiction of breastfeeding supports understanding the maternal body as a source of ambivalence and creativity for the mother as well as for the infant’. Carol Leader (Post-Qualification Path, London), exploring the work of William Blake, argues for the ‘creative value of Blake's contribution when working with certain patients in the consulting room and for the purposes of psychotherapeutic research’. Both papers impressed the Judges with their sensitivity and imagination, and t