For most of my life, I had generally avoided novels written before I was born. They were stodgy. The language was outdated. They were boring. Even if they were significant in the historical sense, I saw them as the literary equivalent of reading the King James Version of the Bible.
I was wrong, of course, but I didn’t realize that until the last decade or so. I first started reading English translations of some Russian classics. I came to love Leo Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina” and Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov,” among others.
Then a friend introduced me to German novelist Hermann Hesse. To one extent or another, I found that I loved “Steppenwolf,” “Siddhartha,” “Narcissus and Goldmund” and “The Glass Bead Game.” I’ve read “Narcissus and Goldmund” four times so far — and I keep finding new things to appreciate about it.
But I was slow to appreciate the English writer Charles Dickens — and I’ve come to understand that this has meant depriving myself of a kind of literary joy that I haven’t experienced for a long time. I just finished the Dickens novel, “David Copperfield,” a few hours ago — and I’d like to suggest that this book is better than almost any fiction that’s been written since I was born.
I’m left feeling serious regret that I’ve had such a huge hole in my education about literature and human existence.

THE McELROY ZOO: Meet Thomas, the aloof loner of my menagerie
As sowing comes before reaping, culture comes before politics
As I quietly watch my world burn, I’m painfully aware this isn’t fine
How much of what we do is driven by our unconscious social scripts?
My endorsement goes to the man who can make coercive state work
Lesson for McCain’s ’08 voters: The lesser of two evils is still evil
Gingrich threatens to skip debates if he can’t dictate audience rules
Goodbye, William (1999-2015)
Concerns about digital future leave me mourning analog past