Bernard writes about a great actress who had just finished playing a role in which she had vividly expressed her passion with running tears. When asked whether she actually felt the emotion she had represented as Andromaque, her answer was: "By no means. I was moved, as was my audience, by listening to myself. But I had no other sensation" (Bernard 64; my translation and emphasis). This example of an actress monitoring and adjusting the emotional value of her performance to optimize communication illustrates the actor's paradox described by Denis Diderot in 1757: "all [the actor's] talent consists not in feeling, as you suppose, but in rendering the external signs of the emotion so rigorously that you are taken in" (132; my translation). Diderot asserts that it is unnecessary, counterproductive even, for actors to worry about feeling emotions. Instead, he says, the entire effort of acting should be toward the dual projects of managing and monitoring the performing body to optimize the creation of emotion in the audience. This is in direct contradiction of the American "method" school of acting which asserts that the main project of acting is the creation of emotion in the actor. Diderot insists that only the objective appearance of emotion is important; Lee Strasberg asserts the preeminence of the subjective sensation of emotion.