The reluctance to learn from the experience of others

Learn Others

Learning -- and Not Learning -- From Others: Human Peculiarities as Demonstrated Through Literature

The witty and insightful contemporary British author Douglas Adams one wrote, "human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." His blanket statement is not always true, of course, but it is true enough to enable some serious investigations of certain literary characters and works, and the very human choices that they make. In Dickens' a Tale of Two Cities, for instance, there is a great deal of desire on the part of some characters to punish others for sins they did not commit, forcing a type of "learning" from the mistakes of others. These characters fail to see the hypocrisy of these actions, however, or the fact that visiting more violence upon the innocent makes them just as guilty as those they would punish, if not more so. Several characters ultimately do learn from others in this book, in very profound and meaningful ways, but this is shown to be a rare trait.

Many of Shakespeare's plays also contain characters that ought to learn form the mistakes of others, some of whom do but most of whom do not. In the Tempest, Caliban should have learned of Prospero's power from the sorcerer's treatment of his mother, but he still resists his authority whenever possible. Prospero himself should have learned about the evils of usurping power form what his brother Antonio did to him, but instead practices a certain type of tyranny over Ariel and Caliban. The end of the play leaves one hopeful that Ferdinand has learned how to wield power well and wisely because of the older generation's mistakes.

In the Merchant of Venice, a series of sometimes unrelated transactions are made in which one or both of the participants in the transaction ought to have known better. The most central of these in regards to the plot is the bargain made between Antonio and Shylock for the loan of three thousand ducats in exchange for, should Antonio fail to repay Shylock in time, one pound of Antonio's flesh. Antonio should have known better than to make a deal with Shylock, whom he knows to be vindictive and very harsh, especially in matters of money, through his dealings with other merchants; Shylock should have known that his bargain would never be upheld because of the way Jews are treated in Venice, if for no other reason. Both of these men fail to learn from the lessons of others, and this is what creates the central conflict of the drama and indeed allows for the plays existence in the first place.

The Merchant of Venice, though ostensibly a comedy, is one of the more serious plays in the comedic genre. The Taming of the Shrew is far more humorous and light hearted, but it is not without its lessons. The specific lessons vary greatly depending on one's interpretation of the play, especially in performance, but one key lesson that most of the female characters fail to learn is the advantage of working in tandem with their husband. Petruchio manages to win a substantial amount of money through his new wife Kate's quick obedience; she has learned through the course of the play to at least give the appearance of docility and subservience, which the other women lack -- they have failed to learn anything from her transformation, seeing no problems in themselves form the outset. This failure costs them some cold, hard, cash.