You've listed the names of various fallacies. Logical fallacies. But what logic are you saying is fallacious in the parent comment? The commenter has their own set of biases and hueristics for choosing what to spend their limited time in.
Unless they follow it up with, "and for these reasons, these are the correct books to read" then there is no fallacy.
My point is that identity is a bad measure. If you like their identity, that's plea to authority. If you don't, that's ad hominem. So rather than going off of the value of the content, we're going off of whether you agree or not. This is the thinking that gets people stuck in echo chambers. Better to optimize your time by seeking reviews which might hint at whether the content could be interesting for you or not
Fallacies in argumentation may nevertheless be useful rules in managing limited time. That are fallacies because they do not price the conclusion, but that doesn't mean that they are without value as mechanisms for making decisions based on lose associations that do not need to be 100% correct to be valuable.
Plea to authority is a fallacy when it is an inappropriate plea to authority. Asking that someone who writes a history book actually be an authority on history is not a fallacy.
When a work is popular and heavily critiqued the authority of the author is no longer necessary. Surely the volume of critical analysis provides you sufficient information that you no longer need such a noisy signal as the author's identity.