 Other philosophers have been wary of admitting relations because, they complain, relations are unsatisfactorily characterised, “neither fish nor fowl”, i.e., neither substances nor attributes (Heil 2012: 141, 2016: 130) or "ontologically weird" (Lowe 2016: 111). Now it’s certainly true that \(n\)-adic relations, where \(n\gt 1\), cannot be characterised as either substances or (monadic) attributes. But it only follows that relations are unsatisfactorily characterised if we assume that substances and attributes provide the benchmark for satisfactory characterisation. But we shouldn’t assume this ahead of investigating whether the theoretical benefits of admitting relations outweigh the costs. It’s also been complained that relations are suspect because they depend upon the existence of substances that bear them (Campbell 1990: 108–9) or, as Lowe makes the point, “A ‘relational accident’, if there could be such a thing would not be ‘in’, to at least not be wholly ‘in’, any of its two or more ‘subjects’, nor even wholly ‘in’ the totality of them. I consequently find it hard to conceive what such an entity could really be” (Lowe 2016: 111–2). Of course it’s true that in order for a relation to be borne by one thing to another thing, then those things must exist. But it doesn’t follow that relations don’t exist if nothing bears them. Moreover, it doesn’t follow straightaway from the reflection that to be borne by something a relation needs things to bear it, that relations are suspect. It doesn’t follow any more than it follows from the reflection that to be had by something an attribute needs things to have it, that attributes are suspect. If the price is right we should open our minds to the possibility of things which are neither fish nor fowl but vegetables, i.e., neither substances nor attributes but relations.