Is there a generally-accepted list of "must-read" books,

>>9870915
You're provably searching for 'the western canon'.
That would be way over 100 books though, so you may wanna read only the ones you are interested about.

>>9870915
Who cares? Just lurk moar and read books that interest you. Don't fall for the 'YOU MUST READ THE ENTIRE WESTERN CANON IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER' meme that's so popular around here. In the real world, you will never encounter someone who will flame you for not having read a specific classic so none of them are "must read" in that sense.

>>9870927
What this guy said. Read the ones you are interested in reading.

>>9870942
I'm not doing it to appear knowledgeable, I'm doing it because it interests me. I spend a lot of time reading generic fantasy doorstop trilogies, and I know there's a huge library of public domain classics for me to dig into. My problem is I'm not exactly sure where to start with it, and finding some sort of list that I can check off would help me a lot, even if I initially scratch half the list and stick to the titles that interest me.

>>9870958
Here's the two best lists out there:
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

http://spinelessbooks.com/mccaffery/100/

>>9871002
That second list is great, thanks. I don't necessarily mean the whole western canon, something more along the lines of BBC's "big read" but for classics instead of harry potter and Jacqueline Wilson.

>>9870915
Honestly the /lit/ 2016 top 100 is mostly full of very important books

greeks and only the greeks

the bible and only the bible

>>9870915
Great Books of the Western World set is what you're looking for. The synopticon especially is useful for focused and conscious reading. You want to be "well-read" not "wide-read" and that requires reading well not just widely.