Two thoughts about recently deceased Stephen Mitchell: His criticism's of classical psychoanalysis overlapped considerably with those of Frederick Crews, yet he was well accepted within the psychoanalytic world while Crews has taken on the status of the Anti-Christ. (I must exclude most social-worker-psychoanalysts who do not seem to know anything about Crews and who are amazed that anyone can find any reason at all to criticize psychoanalysis). Mitchell was sharp in his criticism; he didn't pull any punches, nor did he conclude his articles with the usual platitude that Freud, despite being wrong about everything as well as being an all around bad guy, was still a world class genius. Could Mitchell's acceptance within psychoanalysis and Crew's rejection be due to (1) Crews' biting humor, (2) Crews' non-psychoanalyst status, or (3) Crews' rejection of all psychoanalytic approaches, including Mitchell's relational orientation? Mitchell did a good job of raising serious questions about classical psychoanalysis, but he seemed to miss the-in my opinion- obvious point that relational psychoanalysis suffers the same deficiencies, the most notable of which is that it, too, is unconnected to any body of scientific knowledge nor does it have any research backing. Freud could feel that research is unnecessary for psychoanalytic advancement; yet, at this time, it is unlikely that psychoanalytic theorists can be taken seriously outside their own group of followers without having a scientific research basis for their claims. Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.