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 The language was outdated.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.

Biases teach us what to expect, but we often turn out to be wrong
Epiphany: My message changed when I selected a new audience
Door in my dream keeps trying to take me to the life I’ve needed
Without peaceful breakup plan, U.S. faces violent, angry collapse
What’s at the root of objections to real freedom? Paternalism
THE McELROY ZOO: Meet Henry, the tiny kitten who was dumped with a broken leg and a big heart
Double standards seem like the only standards most politicians know
Regardless of political beliefs, why does anyone watch Bill O’Reilly?
We’re more like other animals than we like to admit to anyone