I could've read a couple more from the list instead of doing this, but, grr, once again I cave to the inner list-maker/sorter/organizer and spend a bunch of time seeing what books I've read, out of a totally arbitrary list. I will blame/credit my brother's post as well.
As far as Lists of Books I Have Seen, I think it's more slanted than most towards recent books. Some people at the Amazon page for the original list-book seem to hate it more than I would've guessed possible, and it's easy enough to spot the biases/areas of expertise of the authors...pretty much all of Margaret Atwood, Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf are listed, and way more HG Wells than I would've dreamed necessary. I think as far as creating interesting lists of books that don't feel slanted to make the list authors feel like hipsters, librarians do a better job. (I expect librarians do a better job of almost everything, actually.)
I've read 235 of them, spread pretty equally among the centuries, and some of them numerous times (and to sound like a complete jackass: three of them in French! Which I would not be able to do anymore!). For me, the most entertaining part of the exercise was actually remembering some connections between books on my list. Little Women I read for the first time when I was about eight. Little Women is directly responsible for a much earlier book on my list (one of the four I've read out of the 13 pre-1700 titles), which I would never have even heard of otherwise: Pilgrim's Progress. I read that when I was around 11 or 12, and found it, as you might imagine from the title, tremendously boring.