  We critically review the recent debate between Doreen Fraser and David
Wallace on the interpretation of quantum field theory, with the aim of
identifying where the core of the disagreement lies. We show that, despite
appearances, their conflict does not concern the existence of particles or the
occurrence of unitarily inequivalent representations. Instead, the dispute
ultimately turns on the very definition of what a quantum field theory is. We
further illustrate the fundamental differences between the two approaches by
comparing them both to the Bohmian program in quantum field theory.
