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 The language was outdated.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.

You can change your story, but you first must throw away the old ones
Ignore the happy face it presents: Coercive state points a gun at you
Is Big Brother taking over your refrigerator and other appliances?
Man who’s leaving infertile wife thinks world revolves around him
Obama channeling Heinlein’s ghost: ‘…we’ve had a run of bad luck’
I’m trying to silence inner critic who says I ought to be perfect
At times, we have to just wait for the day when we’ll see the fruit
Trip to Memory Lane reminds me some relationships deserve to die
Intolerance isn’t just an American thing; it’s common to all humans