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 The language was outdated.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.

How do we sometimes know things which we have no way of knowing?
Loss of majestic tree in my yard feels like death of an old friend
We can’t control timing of death, just what we do as we’re waiting
Some Ohio State football fans believe a U.S. president has superpowers
Do tales of ‘Black Friday violence’ reflect reality or just our bias?
Snapshots of hurting people and broken families, but no resolutions
‘Let’s Make a Deal’: Democracy is like a dumb old TV game show
Just give us big, fake, happy smiles; nobody wants to hear your feelings
Will the last journalist to leave newspaper business turn off lights?