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 The language was outdated.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.

Goldwater led to Reagan Revolution; What might Ron Paul’s legacy be?
Why are churches only talking about freedom as it relates to abortion?
VIDEO: Yes, I’m still going to talk to you about the end of the world
Don’t trust this con man — or almost anybody else on ‘TV news’
Being alone allows us to indulge our worst flaws and avoid change
Still relevant six years later: ‘We’re the Government — and You’re Not’
Loss of everything you value can be a new beginning, not the end
Few dollars fed mom and her girls, but her bigger challenges lie ahead
Goodbye, Bessie (2008-2018)