My review of Ingrao and Sardoni’s book paper focuses on its Part II, entitled “From the Neoclassical Synthesis to New Keynesian Economics.” My criticisms amount to three. First, I disagree with Ingrao and Sardoni’s account of the twists and turns that have occurred in modern macroeconomics. Often, where they see continuity, I see cleavage; where they see cleavage, I see continuity. Second, I put forward that the result of the 2008 recession is that DSGE economists were led to zero in on the hitherto neglected issue of the workings of the financial sector and its integration in their models. Hence, Ingrao and Sardoni’s conclusion of failure must be revised. Third, I want to bring out that the internal history of economics can be written in two ways: the approach can be partisan or steer clear of the fray. As I am in favor of the latter, I regret that Ingrao and Sardoni have adopted the former.