Compare and contrast the philosophies of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot.
This sense of spontaneity and direction built into the actors’ part is also evident when in response to Capulet’s Wife’s straight forward question “How long is it now till Lammastide?” (16) the Nurse responds with a thirty two lines speech. The written part for the actor playing Capulet’s Wife would not have contained the Nurse’s unpredictably long and circuitous ramblings, the actor would perhaps then be waiting ready for their next cue, “said ‘Ay’” (49) upon which they could speak their next line. This waiting interminably to speak, whilst the nurse speaks at length to little purpose would replicate for the actor the fictional space of the play. This textual construction of fictional atmosphere through the actor’s part is developed by the use of repeated cues in the Nurse’s speech. In Shakespeare in Parts Palfrey and Stern demonstrate that this speech contains two sets of repeated cues and that this cue “said Ay” is the cue for both Capulet’s Wife and Juliet to speak (49, 58). Further even when the cue is extended to include more of the line, it remains the same or perilously similar. This seems to create an inevitability of cross speaking, where both Juliet and her mother try to come in on the first cue, speaking over but failing to stop the Nurse, then again on the second cue Juliet could give way to her mother who finally gets to speak her whole line, then on the 3rd cue Juliet tries and again fails to stop the nurse, with the delivery of the 4th “said Ay” allowing the Juliet actor finally to says his whole line uninterrupted. Whilst it is possible that this repeated cue is unintentional, it seems unlikely, as where repeated cues do appear in Shakespeare’s work they function in theatrically similar ways, creating interruptions and overlaps and helping to develop character types by building into the text a refusal to give up their verbal space, like the Nurse in this scene. This investigation of the possibilities presented by cues and the actors’ part is not set out to demonstrate a new understanding of authorial intention, but rather to demonstrate how examining actors’ parts reveals interpretive possibilities for the actor and how these possibilities make clear that the play is rendered whole through performance, that there is a direct dependent relationship between actor and part. This suggests t>GET ANSWER