The author of this article believes that Ericsson and his associates continue to produce impressive research on talent and exceptional performances. He agrees that the objective of their featured article--"a general theoretical framework that establishes scientific criteria for acceptable evidence of superior reproducible performance, which any theory of exceptional performance must explain"--is certainly laudable and worthwhile. However, the author also has several concerns. First, he is unconvinced that there is, as Ericsson et al. claim, no evidence for constraints on the attainment of achievement. Second, there is some genetic evidence for creative thinking. As a matter of fact Ericsson et al. largely ignore the role of creativity. This is unfortunately not uncommon in studies of achievement. There are numerous possible paths to achievement, some individuals attaining it by virtue of their creativity, but others by virtue of their traditional intelligence, charisma, or contrarian ways. Not all eminent persons are creative (Runco, 1995). Yet some are, which means that achievement cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the possible or occasional role of creativity.