but I'm pretty certain that Q started with amusing photo captions. Carried over from Smash Hits, really, like a big chunk of the staff. I like 'em.

Edit:

Just realized, Eddie, that you're suggesting they've disappeared. Haven't got the new mag yet, but I thought they had suddenly appeared last month.

I am indeed suggesting they've disappeared. And so will my £4.80 unless they're brought back pronto!

Try looking at more than the cover and the first few pages. You'll find the captions consistently toward the back of the mag. This month, I have mostly found them on page 113.

I don't miss the 'comedy' captions at all.
Things like that always smack of subeditors trying a bit too hard to me.

I left "Q" behind a couple of years ago, as the magazine changed for the worst. Or perhaps I didn't adapt to it, who knows?. However, recent covers featuring Cheryl Cole & Lady GaGa told me I'm not the sort of reader they're trying to attract - Ms Cole being extremely appealing to look at notwithstanding!

There's a few unsettling things I've noticed recently in Word. What's with the cartoon front covers? Yes, an occasional one is different but I hope it's not the way forward. I'm not looking for Nuts or Loaded type pictures, but it reminds me of a Punch cover circa 1890. Mark ellen's diary at the beginning reads like a "look what I've been up to, lucky me" type piece. Yes, he's probably a damn fine chap but I can't help agreeing with Steve Walters opinion, as highlighted by Mark in these month's mag. There's some interesting stuff in it, but why personalise it? I don't need to read someone's social diary. And on the subject of personalising, I am puzzled why magazine articles need to have a picture of the author? Don't get me wrong. I love the contents of the magazine, but it's the name of the contributors alone that makes me cough up my subscription.

As long as they keep referencing that mystical "Central Casting" character in each issue (and nearly every podcast) I will renew my subscription.

1. the illustrated front covers. Class.
2. the large amounts of actual writing, rather than filler.
3. the absence of "hilarious" captions. That just says FHM in the 90s to me.

Just goes to show, horses for courses, one man's meat, it's a funny old world etc.

...but I agree that the 3 page editors diary thing is an experiment that should be curtailed ASAP. Half a page top whack and give the space to something else.

that both the letters and caption competition had gone but the pages were stuck together, An unfortunate side effect of the new format is that whereas before the postie had to stick it under the mat, now he can scrunch it up and force it through the letterbox, trashing it in the process.

I was flicking through the new Word and my eye alighted on the word 'firework' in Andrew Collins' column. At that moment, a firework went off in the street outside. Flicking forward, I read the picture caption on the Nick Kent piece in which he's quoted as saying that Chrissie Hynde is 'a real box of fireworks to live with', and just then, some more fireworks went off in the street outside. Next I read about Helen Baxendale in Cold Feet and I thought, 'I wonder if Helen Baxendale will walk in the door...'

I'll let you know if she does. In the meantime, I'm off to find a pair of slippers.

its been too long...when this site becomes flabby and nonsensical, which it does from time to time...i long for your wit,charm and insight...seriously post some more!

Oh Q went south once D Kelly esq left the shop.

That bloody Mark Ellen has taken over the David Hepworth subscriber's letter too. Perhaps it's just me who gets it...

Forget what I said if that's the case. Thanks mate.