Or actually the other way around: cracking up with Cracking On.

There's at least one in every publication: in the last issue of Sphinx I now know there's at least two, no -- three.

In my editorial, there's 'arrive' with one 'r': Christmas is due to arive shortly.

Worse is the Grey Hen progress interview. I started the problem by asking Joy Howard about her new anthology, Cracking Up. Only of course, it isn't called Cracking Up, it is called Cracking ON. She politely pointed this out and I corrected the error. As I thought.

I failed to notice that the title came into the interview four times and I corrected only two of them. Here is some of what I should have said:

Your forthcoming anthology, Cracking  On, focuses on the theme of aging. Could that be something most people want not to think about?

Yes and no. Recently, the topic of ageing is getting a higher profile in the media, which indicates that people (and we live in a society where an ageing population is on the increase) are more open to thinking about it. The contributors to Cracking On both celebrate age, overturn expectations about older women, and confront the reality of the approaching end of life. Insight, humour and courage are always inspiring, but especially so when thinking about aging.

Cracking On is the sequel to A Twist of Malice (a cracking good anthology by the way).

Phew. Please take a look at Katy Evans-Bush (Baroque in Hackney) on Gary McKinnon. It is chilling. Poets can and should get political in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, I'm back to getting more of the Sphinx tripartite reviews online. It is slow. I think it's worth it, but slow. The process goes like this:

I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't still occasional errors, but you can see why it takes a long time to do this. Even just the shift from three Word docs to ready on line takes me about three-quarters of an hour per review. Labour of love, or what?

It is quite fascinating. I know and respect all my reviewers. Quite often all three come in with a broadly similar rating and response, although some are slightly kinder than others, and I end up feeling -- yes -- this must represent a fair judgement of this publication.

But then I look at another one -- sometimes with the same three reviewers -- and two of them vary dramatically. One has found the publication awful, almost impossible to tolerate; another thinks it is wonderful. How very interesting! I know that my reviewers take quite a while to come up with their responses: these people have READ the poems and thought about them carefully. And yet . . .

What does this say about poetry? Such a dramatic variation. What does it say?

Or actually the other way around: cracking up with Cracking On.

There's at least one in every publication: in the last issue of Sphinx I now know there's at least two, no -- three.

In my editorial, there's 'arrive' with one 'r': Christmas is due to arive shortly.

Worse is the Grey Hen progress interview. I started the problem by asking Joy Howard about her new anthology, Cracking Up. Only of course, it isn't called Cracking Up, it is called Cracking ON. She politely pointed this out and I corrected the error. As I thought.

I failed to notice that the title came into the interview four times and I corrected only two of them. Here is some of what I should have said:

Your forthcoming anthology, Cracking  On, focuses on the theme of aging. Could that be something most people want not to think about?

Yes and no. Recently, the topic of ageing is getting a higher profile in the media, which indicates that people (and we live in a society where an ageing population is on the increase) are more open to thinking about it. The contributors to Cracking On both celebrate age, overturn expectations about older women, and confront the reality of the approaching end of life. Insight, humour and courage are always inspiring, but especially so when thinking about aging.

Cracking On is the sequel to A Twist of Malice (a cracking good anthology by the way).

Phew. Please take a look at Katy Evans-Bush (Baroque in Hackney) on Gary McKinnon. It is chilling. Poets can and should get political in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, I'm back to getting more of the Sphinx tripartite reviews online. It is slow. I think it's worth it, but slow. The process goes like this:

I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't still occasional errors, but you can see why it takes a long time to do this. Even just the shift from three Word docs to ready on line takes me about three-quarters of an hour per review. Labour of love, or what?

It is quite fascinating. I know and respect all my reviewers. Quite often all three come in with a broadly similar rating and response, although some are slightly kinder than others, and I end up feeling -- yes -- this must represent a fair judgement of this publication.

But then I look at another one -- sometimes with the same three reviewers -- and two of them vary dramatically. One has found the publication awful, almost impossible to tolerate; another thinks it is wonderful. How very interesting! I know that my reviewers take quite a while to come up with their responses: these people have READ the poems and thought about them carefully. And yet . . .

What does this say about poetry? Such a dramatic variation. What does it say?