Abstract I argue that Bertrand Russell's 1923 ''Vagueness'' has wrongly endured long-standing criticism in the secondary literature on metaphysical vagueness. I divide the most com- mon criticisms of Russell into three 'myths', as I call them. I then indicate why none of these three myths is justifed by the light of a close reading of Russell's 1923 piece. The upshot of dispelling the myths is inviting work on *representationalism*, the view that metaphysical vagueness is a feature of representations.
