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 The language was outdated.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.

Teacher suspended for insisting that failure is an option for lazy kids
Politicians trying to stamp out innovation to help monopolies
Tough problem: What does a free society do about unfit parents?
When strangers tell us things we want to hear, we want to believe
Social media is an addictive drug, so I’m kicking my Facebook habit
Illusions we project for others allow us to remain hidden inside
Memo to Republicans: Your serious contenders are hypocrites, too
Hiding anger was a survival skill, so you might not know I’m angry