I think the idea of a fixed number of classic books one 'must' read is both fascinating and a bit arbitrary. Classics are timeless because they resonate across generations, but the number depends entirely on personal passion and curiosity. Some might argue for lists like '100 Books to Read Before You Die,' but I believe it’s more about depth than quantity. For instance, 'Pride and Prejudice' by Jane Austen isn’t just a romance; it’s a sharp commentary on class and gender, rewarding rereads with new insights. Similarly, '1984' by George Orwell feels more relevant with each passing decade, its dystopian themes echoing modern societal fears. The value isn’t in ticking off titles but in engaging with their ideas.
That said, if I had to suggest a starting point, I’d prioritize variety over a rigid count. A mix of genres and eras—like the psychological depth of 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoevsky, the poetic tragedy of 'The Iliad,' or the surreal creativity of 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'—offers a richer experience than bulldozing through a checklist. Even within classics, tastes vary; some adore the dense symbolism of 'Moby-Dick,' while others prefer the accessible wit of 'The Importance of Being Earnest.' The goal isn’t to read 'enough' but to find the ones that speak to you, whether that’s 10 or 50. After all, classics are called classics because they endure—they’ll wait for you to discover them at your own pace.