The Guardian's 100 Best Novels
If you pay any attention to the book world, you probably encountered The Guardian's recent 100 Best Novels. I won't add to the extensive commentary it produced except to say that the method behind the list (compiling the votes of 170+ writers, editors, broadcasters, etc) is significantly more interesting than just having one guy (Robert McCrum) do it then for some reason have him do it again a few years later. It's especially neat that you can look at the ballots and thus judge people individually, not just in aggregate.
One of my Bluesky mutuals went to the trouble of compiling his own (very interesting) list of 100 novels, with the added constraint of limiting it to one book per author. I was briefly overcome with the urge to do the same, but I struggle with this kind of thing, not least because I feel like my attitude towards books is forever in a state of flux, which is one reason why I tend to reread a lot. I never entirely trust the me that I used to be.
Anyway, whatever the list's flaws and unexpected omissions (including the total absence of Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien), probably the healthiest thing to take away is the impetus to read the works featured, or works like them, or works completely different to them, delete as appropriate. I sat down and worked out that of the thirty-six titles I haven't read, there are twenty-five I want to read, eight I might think about maybe reading, and three I won't read and you can't make me.