Cole’s and Ringstrom’s discussions of my paper “Living Truthfully Under Imaginary Circumstances: Improvisation in Psychoanalysis” recognize that Meisner improvisation stands in contrast to the dialogic model of improvisation that predominates in psychoanalysis. However, each of these discussants demonstrates several misunderstandings of Meisner improvisation. Mainly, Cole confuses the Meisner repetition exercise with improvisation proper. This is not the case. And Ringstrom, wedded to dialogic improvisation, does not recognize that in the Meisner improvisation it is not words that are improvised but rather the affective engagement. I emphasize that the Meisner improvisation focusing on unpredictable, moment-to-moment, affective engagement provides a model well suited to the goals of the analytic encounter.