My response to Joyce Slochower's paper emphasizes the value of de-idealization of psychoanalytic parental figures, as part of developing an autonomous analytic identity, and sharply differentiates de-idealization from devaluation. Slochower's view of Winnicott is seen as moving in this direction, and therefore as substantially different from hostile attempts at Winnicott bashing. I view her specific interpretation as a thought-provoking and enriching speculation, and a valuable contribution to understanding nuances of the transference–countertransference cycle. I warn against over--confidence in interpretations based on hindsight. I also suggest that Winnicott's work with Khan and with Guntrip, with all its shortcomings, clearly contributed to their productivity and creativity.