[b0rsuk]

Somehow, the books are listed by quantity (and by century), not by topic, theme, their influence on X or anything. So yes, the number is their defining attribute. It's an "alpha reader" thing, to put it mildly.

So many books on the list and I find it hard to take seriously. I mean...
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick ? It's an okay book, but one of the best ? No way ! For me it's one of the worse books by the author. Also, Neuromancer is on the list. It may have been an influential book, but it's been copied so many times it's almost a waste of time now. Everything it has has been done somewhere else. Hardly a book you must read, unless you're a historian. Steppenwolf - hippies loved it, but today it inspires no one. It just shows sensibilities of the time (like: Jazz sucks because it's so mainstream).
And yes, I know I just pulled a "guilt by association" fallacy.

I'm glad I haven't started going through the list. I'd rather follow my own taste. I would never have discovered Robert Sheckley or Roald Dahl if I used this list. No Machiavelli. A dedicated but not obsessed person can read about 6000 books in his lifetime. I could understand if it was my wife's list, but otherwise...