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 The language was outdated.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.

Here’s a hot news flash: State ‘industrial policy’ still doesn’t work
Little remains in me of the person I was when I married for lifetime
Are government employee unions making the rest of us unsafe?
The Cain Train becomes train wreck when candidate has to think on feet
Uh, oh: For first time since ’45, U.S. job growth was zero last month
Well-meaning parents stifle kids by trying to make their decisions
I kinda like Rand Paul, but I don’t support anybody as ruler-in-chief
We won’t be free until politicians lose power to control the Internet
Most narcissists instinctively steal approval that you deserve