Literary Psychology.

Y: We start with the Gothic genre, for where else; the Gothic genre is the domain of individual emotional experience; it belongs to Psychology.

Y: We then move onto what the Gothic genre is, exactly, and its relationship to madness.  In Gothic fiction, scenes are swelled from normality and brim with drama - an interesting distinction (albeit ultimately incidental) being whether or not this drama perceived from the supposedly fantastic  exists within itself a priori or indeed whether it is applied perceptually from the observer in question.

Y: Next we irrevocably come to the mindset of the typical Actor in a Gothic context.

X: No quotations?

Y: Who takes pain to use quotations mid-speech?  Quotations, references, and other academic conventions are relics of written communication; their existence and convention being in itself demonstrative on the limitations of human processing in a conversational context; limitations both mechanically - inherent within our psychological machinery - and practically, regards the bewildering subtractive social forces the mind is relentlessly victim to each day during social intercourse. -- Anyway, the typical mentality of the actor.

X: As in, the mentality you think it has.

Y: Given my understanding of it thus far, yes.  The Actor is, at least at first consideration, typically emotionally dubious; reactions to things supposedly deemed 'fantastic' (i.e., dramatic) are apparently somewhat disproportionate relative to the 'value' attributed them in the perception of the same object of most other individuals.  The Actor however sees in them something almost penetrative.  The breath is stolen and the heart is stabbed; this experience of 'being moved' - a giddy, enormous feeling by which such a short phrase hardly does it justice - within day to day experience seems to happen when worldview (expectations and sense of reality applied to the physical world;  'I think the idea of this is beautiful')  and actual experience of that world (when the Actor rests eyes or otherwise experiences something which seems in its existence to support this 'take' on the world) essentially, overlap.

X: How are they emotionally dubious?

Y: Because their mentality - emotional stability, identity stability - seem generally unstable and their hold on reality notoriously slippery.

An apologist for the Actor's mindset would say however that this seems quite in line with human experience; the world is at it is insofar as the many vicissitudes of brain-states dictates: for instance on one's sense of time: if one is sleeping,  high,  or otherwise experiencing an abnormal physiological brain-state different from the day-to-day norm, the apologist would argue that the Actor's reality literally 'is' ever-changing and fluid, and that given such physiological variation and subsequent experiential fluidity, such reality is hardly 'dubious'.   Those with interests existing independent from vested emotional belief however (as is the case with the apologist) - science, in all of its impersonal glory - speak differently.

We notice that the individual differs from the majority in this respect; in their experiential emotional intensity, if you will.

X: [amused] I shall.

Y: Glad to hear.

X: So let me try and clarify; this 'Actor' - the typical character within the Gothic genre, who is (conceptually) perfectly capable of existing in 'real life' -  feels, or possesses a capacity to feel, a greater emotional intensity than most.

Y: Quite so.

X: What else?

Y: [thinks]... In person, they are probably usually quite furtive in general social intercourse; though should nature flash her colours and demonstrate her might - a storm, a fire, a tossing sea, perhaps - then their true colours show and the shyness will dissolve away immediately.  Actually, the relationship between the Actor and nature is an interesting one I haven't yet touched on.

I have said earlier that the Actor feels often vastly 'moved' by 'dramatic' objects.  Nature is the most interesting object of sorts in this respect, and also most formidable - as opposed to say, an example of architecture - usually in its sheer 'naturalness'; namely, that no choice has been involved in its physical location.  It has not chosen to be there, and, arguably - at least to the Actor - has a far greater right to exist and be the way it is and does more than, say, a person who has 'chosen' to be there and act a certain way.  Specifically, nature 'just exists', and the Actor attributes a huge amount of value and respect to this; they feel as though they are glimpsing 'wild and untamed' nature as it is and indeed as it should be.

So, Nature as an object contains (latent) emotional potential.  However, this emotional potential only carries any emotional currency when backed by the incidence of Nature rearing her might; something powerful - as above, say, a storm.  Otherwise, whilst beautiful, I think nature is generally seen as rather innocuous.  A postcard is pretty, not exciting.

Asha.

X: Ok.  So you think lots.  What about her.
Y: Good question indeed.
X: I'm going to ask you what you think about her.
Y: [pause, then] Can it be said?
X: That's sort of the point.  How long have you known her for?
Y: Six years.
X: That's a lot of years.
Y: But can one say 'how I feel about her'.
X: Why not though?
Y: [quiet passion] What does it even mean?  'I like her?'  I find it dubious to conceive that one can take all the moments they have ever experienced, with that person; and then say, after all the experiences had together; everything which was said, and that which was wanted to be said; - yes, I like her.  She's alright.   It doesn't quite do it justice.
X: Ok.  But what about her specifically.
Y: [in spite of self, and aware of this] --Feels like me.
X: 'She's you'?
Y: Sounds awful, obviously.
X: But you still think it.
Y: Of course.
X: .. What is she like?
Y: [warming] Fascinating.
X: How though?
Y: She's great.  -- You meet her and she blows you away.   - I'm also the single one who knows her.
X: Oh dear.  What about Occam's razor.
Y: Yes.  It's probably right in this instance.   But I feel it anyway.
X: That's... awfully human of you.
Y: [as before; in spite of self] I can't describe how she makes me feel.
X: 'She'.
Y: Yes I know; I like it too.
X: Your she?
Y: Always.   Interestingly too; it's the only she who threatens all that I am.
X: ['realises'] She humanises you?
Y:  [thinking] Yes...
X: And that scares you?
Y: [knowing pause; 'furrowed brow'] Hugely.
X: I'd like to meet her.
Y: I would like to see her again.
X: Where is she now?
Y: [almost nostalgic] I don't know.
X: Will she ever come back?
Y: I'm not sure.
X: Will you wait for her if she did?
Y: ...
Y: I find her absence more interesting.  What is a plausible explanation.    She said pretty explicitly she'd want us 'to have the summer together'.
X: What are the possibilities?
Y: Well there are some; 1) that it's too much for her, so she left it; that she didn't like the vulnerability;   2) that she met an alternative, 3) that she's simply too busy.  The first is dubious, the second ridiculous, and the third possible, but silly.
X: 'Expand'?
Y: First: true, but unlikely to cause her silence; I've always made her like that, so there is something else accounting for its specific happening now.  Second: has happened before as well; other suitors all whom meant well, though paled in comparison to our magnitude.  Third: quite possible.  It sounds rather like her.  But again, the question unanswered remains; why now.
X: Do you think understanding it makes yourself feel better.
Y: Yes; it allows me some control over a situation I have no control over and is very serious to me.  In a manner of speaking; the prattling helps.

X: just quickly: social norms.
Y: [pleased] Ah yes..
X: What's your take on them.
Y: [quick] Meaningless.
X: Do tell.
Y: Social norms are generated by people; people are raised differently in different places; social norms vary.
X: So they vary?  Explain more.
Y: Well, there has been no deliberate thinking behind them.  At the moment they are simply a given arbitrary.
X: Yet people take offence to them?
Y: They do, yes!
X: Why.
Y: [shrugs] Seems because they're told its offensive.
X: ..Because they're told.
Y: [earnest] Yes.
X: Not because they actually make any sense?
Y: That is quite the point.
X: Ok... so what would you suggest.
Y:  Me?  I would suggest nothing.
X: Nothing?
Y: [dead serious] Nothing.
X: But you think they're ridiculous.
Y: They are ridiculous.
X: But?
Y: I suppose they are also essential for day-to-day functioning.   I suppose the masses require them.  A filter: [subtle mocking] everyone must fit into the box otherwise they are really quite strange.
X: Ah, I see why you would have no time for that.
Y: [knowing] I know.

The Hatter.

[White.  Minimalist].

[Two characters; one wanders; back-stage left towards front stage-right.  Speech is generally unhinged; out of lucid disorientation rather than malice though.

Other stands at front-stage right.  Dressed unusually, but perfectly [social] normal; intently gazing at something inconsequential; 'furrowed brow'].

X: 'Hi'
Y:'[delight] Hello'
X:'-- How are you'.
Y:'Very good'
X:  'Cool.  Where are we'
Y: 'Have you seen this?  Have a look at it'
[prop handed over].  It doesn't belong here'.
X: [interest] ...Where is here?
Y:  Where is it not?
X:  It doesn't have a name?
Y: I'm afraid I don't understand.
X:  Here.  What's this place called.
Y: To whom?
X [stumped] - Generally.
Y:  I'm not sure what that means...
X:  Ok.  [Y begins getting out a cloth; makes to put in on the floor].
X: [four seconds]  Then who are you?
Y: [amused at question; happy] Who am I not?
X:  Do you have a name?
Y: -Not particularly one that matters.
X:  What matters then?
Y:  -I'm not sure.
X: -- So you don't know.
Y:  [quick] -Haven't the faintest idea.
X:  Ok. [subject change] I don't know where I am.
Y:  Does anyone?
X:  [pensive pause; four seconds] You're called the hatter.
Y:  I am.
X:  And why is that?
Y:  Why what?
X:  [patient]  Why are you called the hatter.
Y: 'The Hatter'?  'The hatter'?  Profitless chatter.
X:  -Profit to whom though.
Y: [pleased] Exactly!
X:  So.  We are nowhere.
Y:  Yes.
X:  And you are no one?
Y:  [gaily; at the irony] I am no one!
X: [remembering, but analytical] ..I thought you were always called the Mad hatter.
Y: [pregnant]; Ah. 
X:  Yet you say that you are just 'the hatter'.
Y:  [following lines of thought] Yes..
X: Perhaps it would be polite to give your full name.
Y: [teaching] Ah, yes but then everyone would not understand it would they!
X:  'What is mad'?
Y: Precisely.
X: ....well what is mad then.
Y: Existence.
X: 'Existence'?
Y: Subjective perception.
X: Is this play mad.
Y: Probably.  Though its more a dialogue than a play.
X:  Maybe its mad based on the assumption that it isn't?  In the first place?
Y:  Maybe.  Though people are more mad generally.
X:  How?
Y: [assesses X; is satisfied] The world cannot exist without you who is there to see it.
X:  Ok...
Y:  If one world is perceived one way, then that is the way of that world.  If another does so different, it is  matter of different worlds.
X:  Different worlds..
Y:  Yes.  Different as opposed to deviant.  So it becomes more about each's simultaneous totality.  And how each fundamental in itself.
X:  'Deviant'.  So the idea of 'norm' is unstable?
Y:  Incredibly.
X:  What makes it unstable.
Y: Normal is a judgement; people make judgements; people are raised differently; ideas of normal follow differently.  One cannot view the world without superimposing one's own existential paradigm on it.
X:  Existential paradigm.
Y: Yes.
X:  Bit of a mouthful.
Y: Yes it is.
X:..... are you going to clarify?
Y: Do you wish me to?
X: Well yes!
Y: Well; you live.  You have your world; I live, I have mine.  Our fundamental personalities are shaped by our individual experiences.  This set unique experiences, I suppose, becomes your own paradigm, based on subjective experience, which you filter the world through; eventually.
X:  But what is the world?  Just perceptual?
Y:  I think so.   Essentially, you are quite awful.
X: [amused] I am?
Y:  Yes.  Because you put your own paradigm on everything.  It's so self-important.
X:  Ok.  So what do you do then?
Y:  I?  I occupy no conceptual space.
X:  [probing] Why.
Y:  Because I do not know what conceptual space is.