The subdivision of the class of antipsychotic drugs into two discrete groups– ‘conventional’ (or first generation) and ‘atypical’ (or second generation)– has been adopted as standard, with the latter generally accepted as‘better’ and widely recommended as automatic first-line choices. However,this perception has been thrown into confusion with the results of largepragmatic trials that failed to identify advantages with the new, moreexpensive drugs, while identifying worrying tolerability issues. Thisarticle explores the origins of ‘atypicality’, its construction on the backof a confusing and weak clinical validator (diminished liability to promoteparkinsonism) and how even in relation to the archetypical atypical,clozapine, the uncertain boundaries of drug-induced extrapyramidaldysfunction may be contributing to confusion about ‘efficacy’ and‘tolerability’. It argues that abandoning atypicality would open up clinicalpractice to all drugs of a single class of ‘antipsychotics’ and allow forindividualised risk/benefit appraisal as a basis for truly tailoredtreatment recommendations.