And what about this "brief history?" Has it been too celebratory? Probably. A journal which features the word "anarchist" in its name has been in continuous publication for the past fifteen years, and shows no signs of stopping. In my book, that is cause for celebration. Are there aspects of the journal"s history which should be approached with a more critical eye? Perhaps, but I leave that for the next history, and the next historian. Diversity of engagement means, among other things, that there are as many versions of "Anarchist Studies" as there are readers of "Anarchist Studies". So come on, all you cyborgs and Situationists, you ecologists and egoists, you punks and perverts. Who will narrate the next version?