/lit/ - Literature

Hi there. I'm just your friendly /lit/ bacterial typologist. This list is to help diagnose the worst ills of this place so we can enjoy a good clean /lit/ culture together. It is a work in progress, I must admit, so it will be helpful if any of you could provide suggestions as to which categories must be broadened or narrowed, and which new categories must be in place. You can even come up with a typology of your own. I have decided to name this typology "/lit/ typology ver. A", but it is okay for you to make your own version, with a version number of your choice. Once that is done, any time you see a post that falls under any of the categories below, helpfully tag it to this typology to kindly remind the poster that he is falling into an unhealthy type. Be mindful, good internet hygiene is just as important as good physical hygiene, for you don't want to turn into a silly walking stereotype now, do you?

/LIT/ TYPOLOGY VER. A
0. typologists: yours truly
1. e/lit/s: eternal vanguards for the high-low culture divide
2. /pol/ ghouls: rants about conspiracies and all your -isms
3. wan parodists: e.g. type that comments "oh yass qweeeen" in femlit threads
4. non-sequiturs: self-explanatory
5. well-intentioned monkey: attempts a defense but bad at argumentation
6. meta-fags: care more about the metacontent than content- e.g. dubs seekers
7. reactionaries: single line or single paragraph rejections of well-accepted classics
8. diarists: write about their depression and anxieties and wagecuck lives when nobody asks
9. acolytes: shill of the new /lit/ fad without substantial commentary or understanding- e.g. Guenonites, Po-Moers
10. the blessed few: shoehorns religion of any sort into everything
11. trivial pursuers: posts about small marginally book-related things
12. translation-sticklers: those who want you to learn classical dead languages
13. self-help gurus: posts 'meaningful' advice that is really a bunch of cliches and obvious blather strung together as sagely
14. coomers: too erotically minded to talk about books
15. referentialists: throw in the quick reference to prove their literacy
16. pcs among npcs: those who post about NPCs or how they have an intuitive knowledge of all those silly philosophical questions that has been discussed for years
17. irate sociologists: somewhat related to the /pol/ ghouls but more moderate; sees everything in the lens of morality and societal degradation
18. the based: based
19. reccers & recced: ask for books and receive books, leading to long lists of titles with no substantial commentary
20. otaku: posts about anime and weeb stuff trying to relate it to books