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 The language was outdated.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.

How terrified would your child self have been of your current adult life?
All I wanted was to be your hero, but I still haven’t found my way
Emptiness can bring panic that feels like being stalked by fear
Roy Moore just the latest in the long line of politicians who want control
The best romantic relationships end up becoming mutual rescue
Widow: ‘Things that mattered yesterday do not matter today’
Right of secession? In a sane world, we could talk about it in 2011 without talk of slavery
Opening a business? It’s easier to do in Rwanda than in U.S. today
Money can’t buy happiness, but poverty can make you miserable