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 The language was outdated.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.

Love & Hope — Episode 10:
Do I oppose rulers because I hate rulers — or because I hate rules?
When politicians insist the ‘war on drugs’ is working, they’re just following majoritarian incentives
I don’t allow comments anymore, and I’d like to briefly explain why
Is Ayn Rand spinning in her grave? ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a bad film
Here’s the jobs growth Obama promised—in federal workers
Who’s afraid of a federal shutdown? Many of us hope for the real thing
If there’s something you must do, income and vocation might clash