You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the past two to three years there has been a plethora of psychoanalytic psychotherapeutic journals appearing on the British market. This review of the new journal of the Squiggle Foundation,Winnicott Studies, is in fact at the request of the editor of such a journal, which was only launched in 1984.
What does this mean? It means that the editors of all these new journals believe that there is an increasing need for more psychoanalytic psychotherapeutic literature; that they have something new to offer to the reader; and that they have a potential readership to which it will appeal. For anyone working full-time there is a limited number of hours each week that can be devoted to reading books and journals, so the competition is great and the editors need to bait their lines well to make a catch.
In their editorial John Fielding and Alexander Newman explain that the Squiggle Foundation came into being because there were many people from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds who wanted an opportunity to study the work of Donald Winnicott. It is inevitable and right that the Foundation should eventually wish to produce their own journal, but I am not quite sure what the identity of theWinnicot Studies is intended to be, nor am I sure if the editors themselves are. They write, ‘This journal is not presently meant to be learned and we have therefore left out — partly to reduce printing