My thing is that there are books that are critical in some areas, and not in others. For instance, in certain groups, if you haven't read anything (and definitely all his science fiction) by Asimov, you're a dolt. In others, it's Asimov Who? What do you mean you haven't read Nabakov?!

I also don't like the "point" system because it's going for quantity. I've read all of Dickens, because I was required to write a report on one of his books, and I couldn't find one I liked. I think I've gained more from the Ursula K. Leguin or Susan Cooper I've read, however. Even if reading all of Dickens could get me "points." Similar with Shakespeare. Now, I happened to read all of Shakespeare because I went through a total Shakespeare fan girl phase. But isn't there a point at which some variety is a good thing and people should max out points on a particular author? :)

In any case, I think reading is good. Period. If my cousin reading the Piers Anthony got her started reading (and it did), the Piers Anthony should probably be on someone's list. If someone's going to hang out with some of my peer groups, they should really be able to quote Douglas Adams. In other groups, if they can't deal with Dostoevsky they're possibly going to get bored of the conversation.