Memory theorizing is going nowhere. The reason is that it is rooted in mediationism, the doctrine that memory is mediated by some sort of memory trace. Mediationism is the basic tenet of those who seek the sub- strate of memory; for students of memory per se it is merely a metaphor, and moreover an unfruitful one, for it cannot be penetrated by the methods of psychology. The rejection of mediationism would serve both to replace mechanistic theories with laws or other modes of expla- nation and to focus research on the actual experience of memory and on the context in which it occurs. The ensuing advantages are discussed and illustrated. Memory theorizing appears to be progressing nicely. In- deed, judging from the sheer number of pages it consumes in the literature, it appears to be progressing as never before. But the appearance is deceptive, for something is wrong. Very wrong. The argument to be made here is that our memory theories are not only failing to generate a lasting under- standing, but are actually counterproductive. The prob- lem is a fundamental one, and its correction will require a radical change in the way memory is conceptualized. Before pinpointing the problem, let us review the con- temporary scene.