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 The language was outdated.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.

At times, we have to just wait for the day when we’ll see the fruit
‘Cash for clunkers’ was an even bigger clunker than we first realized
Memo to politicians: Coercion isn’t the same thing as ‘investment’
‘War is the health of the state’ — but the death of the people who serve it
Liberal NPR, PBS? Why should tax money pay to influence culture?
AUDIO: Finding meaning, true self requires rejection of your culture
Idiotic idea of the year: Turn email over to the U.S. Postal Service