In response to Foehl's phenomenological perspective that an underlying unity and interconnectedness does away with the need for any kind of distinction between reality and fantasy, the author argues for maintaining this very distinction. The author then uses his notion of fantasy in revisiting Hirsch's treatment of Angela and makes the case that the absence of desire on the analyst's part and the impasse that persisted is partially a result of not sufficiently reviving, altering, and joining the respective fantasies of analyst and patient that existed in isolation of each other throughout the analysis.