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 The language was outdated.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.

Why do we ‘need’ the newest thing? Is that where people get their joy?
Ellie Kemper ‘witch-hunt’ shows why it’s hard to fight real racism
If the state didn’t wither away for Marx and Engels, is there really a post-statist era ahead now?
Faith is our only assurance that rebirth will come again in spring
Voting Rights Act oversight rules should reflect today, not the past
Emotional toll from surgery harder than recovery from physical effects
I’m not certain artists ever get to be themselves when they perform
Anarchist vs. minarchist debate misses the shift to post-statist world