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 The language was outdated.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.

Worshiping the ‘lesser evil’ will always allow evil to rule over you
It’s a very old cliche, but it’s true: Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt
That huge fed debt increase? They’ve already used 60 percent of it
Telling others how to escape is easier than setting myself free
Why is real love so hard to find? Look into a mirror for the culprit
Is ‘galvanic skin response’ a way to measure how much kids learn?
Pinning big hopes on Mitt Romney? He’s a hypocrite on ObamaCare
FRIDAY FUNNIES (for Christmas)
My father’s narcissistic control left me resentful of all authority