Logic. Characters. Causality
Iago. A skilled soldier, a trusted advisor. Ambitious, tenacious, slightly rambunctious. He made people feel special. His generals trusted him, his soldiers would lay down their lives for him. Generous in praise and out-giving in kindness, Iago, however, conceals a side that the world doesn’t see, revealing itself in subtle ways. He refers to people by their rank and dismisses them coldly once they lose their utility to him.
But Why?
Internally driven by envy, Iago’s green-eyed nature propels him. He’s a keen observer of human nature, not out of curiosity, but to manipulate those he perceives as emotionally weak, using them as pawns in his strategic game. He was fawning, smooth-talking, manipulative and could get Othello to mistrust Desdemona and eventually “self-destruct” his empire, all by simply misplacing a little handkerchief. What renders Iago achingly evil, was his unpredictability, unprovoked and sinister. A memorable character, writers admire and readers love to hate. How did Shakespeare create such enigmatic characters?
Every memorable character that lingers in our minds possesses three essential qualities, distilled into a seemingly simple yet challenging exercise of logic.
The first query is, “What do they want?” This is straightforward. Human desires are finite: security, survival, wealth, fame, power, love, respect, legacy. Iago craves power, aspiring to become the Commander.
Next, “How will they achieve it?” This question is more complex. An entrepreneur, hungry for quick wealth, might venture into a high-risk business. A thief, yearning for fame, might attempt to steal the Kohinoor Diamond. Iago, a master at reading human insecurities, manipulates Othello into murdering his wife. The “how” naturally emerges from the narrative universe the author crafts, influenced by the character’s challenges or the prize at stake.
Then comes the third and the pivotal aspect. “Why do they want it?” The often overlooked aspect of reasoning and writing. Many low-quality stories, deemed soapy or formulaic, are riddled with two-dimensional characters: the truth-seeking genius battling for justice, the philanthropic tycoon, the love-struck Romeo willing to burn the world down for his beloved. One can sense the rolling of audience’s eyes, while reading these stereotypical descriptions. But not Iago, he confounds us, because he has a deep sense of why, one we barely understand and it reveals itself through the story. What is his why? He suffers from the wound of pride, the opposite of impostor syndrome. His ego demands more, more than his circumstances can ever provide, and his cowardice and need to be fawning make him backstabbing evil. Externally, Iago wants what Othello has. Internally, he just needs ego boosts. In today’s times, what he really needs is a therapist, helping him deal with an outsized wounded ego.
This ravaging conflict between what a character wants and what they truly need is the crux of the magic.
What then, is the point of a plot? Designing moments which test this internal dilemma. The plot, in essence, serves as a laboratory for testing characters’ resolves, revealing their true natures in the face of dilemmas. It is through these “experiments” that the characters’ motivations, particularly their whys, are illuminated, adding layers of unpredictability and depth to their actions. The richer and more confounding these motivations, the more compelling the narrative becomes. Will the envious character backstab their friend when in position of power? Will the righteous academic commit perjury when faced with saving their family? The answers to such questions maybe boringly simple, if the characters have no “whys”, but..
In the field of computing, as we are entering an era of data driven reasoning for everything, logic does seem to take an occasional backseat. Example: We can predict how many firemen, Manhattan needs on-call on an average weekend based on past data. But should we trim down the fire department if we have had four consecutive quiet weekends? In this simple case observational data is not enough, we need interventional data to make better decisions which we sometimes can’t get. Ideas like do-calculus provide a ray of hope in the era of curve fitting and data mining. For example, in do-calculus, you can only estimate the true number of fireman by simulating the incidence of fires, not solely by observing the past incidents. As a parallel, it’s how Shakespeare, tests the depth of Iago’s envy by controlling his fate.
In conclusion, what did Heraclitus have in mind when he said: Character is Destiny. He possibly suggested, that, despite the ups and downs of an individual’s narrative, one’s character fundamentally shapes all long-term decisions, thereby determining one’s ultimate trajectory. The bold ones will live or die in glory, the meek will live out their lives in insecurity and victimhood, the enjoyable toxicity of envy will inevitably lead to self-destruction, the path of sacrifice will lead to inner peace and the murder of ethics committed to protect one’s interests will eventually drive one insane.
Thus.
Character is Destiny — Heraclitus
References:
Amogh Mahapatra's Writings 