I'm a fan fiction bookbinder so I am writing a review of this book from the perspective of a transmedia archivist and creator. I'm also an active guild member of Renegade Bookbinding Guild, which is inherently a space of political activism; and I am the person who coined the word "racebending" and led efforts to fight whitewashing in Hollywood. So my review is definitively from the perspective of someone deeply steeped in the civics of participatory culture.

This book is a collection of academic essays from the field of fan studies, while also placing fandom as a canary in a coal mine for cultural conflict. It talks about how MAGA itself is a fandom, and argues that "increased acceptability of overt racism and sexism...can't and shouldn't be peeled apart from fandom because it too both reflects and reproduces these power relations. It isn't that the far right used [fandom] to seduce unsuspecting fans into their ideology, but rather that both phenomena are powered by the same (previously largely submerged) cultural reality."

It's very dense, but I appreciated that it provided language to name phenomena I observe in my day to day fandom life--intra-fannish policing, blackwashing, plastic representation, etc. What will stick with me most is probably "residual fandom," what remains when attachment to the fandom has diminished. I appreciated that it pointed out that a lot of the "anti-woke" backlash, at it's heart, is bitterness around how media might be "pandering to the illegitimate desires of illegitimate people" in the eyes of the fans who deride diversity and inclusion. Lastly, what will stay with me is that when folks frame "true fans" as not toxic (ie No True Scotsman) it's also a way to protect the fandom and franchise for culpability.

An interesting and thought provoking read for those interested in fandom studies, particularly Harry Potter fans trying to figure out what to do about JKR.

The bibliography and notes coming at the end of each section makes sense as an academic book, but (especially when reading on a phone vs a computer or physical book) it means those notes feel unconnected. I paged past them without reading because there is no context with them so separated from the text. It would be difficult on a phone screen, but the notes should be at the bottom of the page they reference rather than at the end.
I thought this might read more like "popular" nonfiction. The type written for the masses rather than for a specific research community. This very much reads like a research paper for experts rather than something that the general public would understand and appreciate. It's fine as someone very into both fandom and anthropology, but I think it would be mind-numbing for much of a general audience.
Also, as I'm reading I'm hoping that this is before the final edit. There are some weird sentence constructions and some word choice issues. The word choice things aren't as important in non-fiction to me, but some of the sentences I've read three or four times before getting the point because the verb was in a weird spot or there were so many commas from subordinate clauses. Some of these could be broken into different sentences, but often rewording and changing the phrase order so the commas are less confusing can work.
Even as academic essays, some of these don't work very well for me because of terminology and differences in experience. The 6th essay is "Masks of Micro-Celebrity," and uses the term "facial regimes" to describe something other than face care/makeup (which is what I thought the term meant). Without any connection to English speaking audiences with some sort of similar fan phenomenon, I was lost and ended up skimming it to see if I could get any meaning out of it. In the end, I can't relate to the topic (nothing the authors described seemed familiar or recognizable as someone who doesn't really participate in fandom for micro-celebrities, or I guess they are describing influencers but the authors don't seem to detail them as such). Maybe fans from other cultures will understand that essay better than me. The other one that didn't really connect for me was the 10th essay on Danmu and Reaction Videos. I don't really use Twitch, which I think would be the equivalent to the media platform/fan interactions described. I understood the media the authors were discussing this time, but they were trying to use a metaphor about a house that confused me. Also, I'm not sure I got what they were trying to say in regards to male and female gazes because of the metaphor.
I generally enjoyed reading the other essays. There were a couple that could have benefited from a whole book even if said book was slightly less evidence-based and academically written.