A fantastic primer for fan studies - one that has been sorely needed across various disciplines. As more people begin to engage in fan studies from a place of respect and often in-community perspectives (as opposed to the derisive and judgemental way fan cultures have been studied thus far), a solid foundation for the discipline is needed. This is a great primer for new scholars and would be appropriate to assign to undergrad and masters level students; some well-versed scholars would also find this text useful.

Thank you to netgalley and the publisher for giving me access to the advanced copy of this book to read.

A Fan Studies Primer is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of the field. For a former academic whose experience in area studies and popular culture and film studies I found this to be a good discussion to begin to give some form to a still relatively new area of focused study.

I said nuts and bolts because this is mostly about the act of doing fan studies rather than a collection of fan studies. How, or should, an academic who is also a fan (or an anti-fan) make that known in their research? The typical research ethics questions but applied to this field, as well as some that are particular to it. How certain aspects of fandom (implied inherent whiteness) should be approached and corrected (or corrected for). In other words, a must read for those thinking of doing research in the field but more of a suggested read for those simply interested in the results of that research. But rewarding for all readers.

Since this is about the mechanics of doing the research the contributors are naturally selected from a still relatively small group of scholars and an even smaller group of universities. So a complaint about more diversity, especially in a book that addresses diversity explicitly, is a little off point. Finding scholars in the community of fan studies scholars unfortunately, at this time, is limiting by nature. That said, contributors are largely US with some from the UK, Canada, India, and a more independent scholar with ties to several countries. So without knowing how many scholars are doing fan studies I think this is a fairly diverse group. Plus they want and call for more inclusivity.

Highly recommended for those in or thinking of getting into the field. Also recommended for those who enjoy reading the results of such research but want to have some idea of how the field is evolving.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

The greatest strength of this fan studies primer lies in the wide variety of ideas, approaches and concerns it contains. While I disagree with some of the issues presented, or the interpretation of some points, it's nonetheless a great resource for anyone who wants to get involved in fan studies, or simply wants to understand what the field(s?) looks like today.

Reader, it has everything:
- an account of what it's like to participate in fan studies
- tackling issues of race
- dangers for researchers
- how and where to conduct interviews with fans
- extra constraints for doing ethnography on fans so as not to go against fan culture
- how to look for statistics
- explanations of how to research long-gone fandoms, such as Hollywood fandoms in the '20s and '30s
- explanations on how and where to find printed fanzines
- how to research fan art

The diversity of methods and opinions, and their occasional small contradictions, is an absolute plus, visibly demonstrating the premise of the volume: that there's no "one right way" to do fan studies, but a lot of ways to achieve results. It's inspiring, whether you directly pick up ideas about what you might want to research, or whether you get notice cracks and faults and want to do better.

(I've felt the pull to do a ph.D. just reading this, before reminding myself I have ten years' worth of career in another domain entirely. Still. It's tempting.)

<b>Of course, "A Fan Studies Primer: Method, Research, Ethics" is only a starting point for potential researchers</b>. I mention this to anyone who might not be an academic, but who might get enthusiastic reading my review; while specific fandom-related issues are pointed out, it's only natural that it cannot be a self-contained guide to how to do any and all research. As a potential researcher, you should already be knowledgeable about the wider domain you're doing the research in, whether it's literary analysis or ethnography.

(The above is only an informative note, not a reproach.)

Now, getting to the nitty-gritty of the essays themselves: some were more persuasive in their arguments, and others less. Some I could see as posing interesting questions, while others I disagreed with.

<b>My #1 complaint.</b> It's a major discussion in the first chapters, and one I found myself disagreeing with even more than usual. "Whiteness" is considered to be a monolith and a default lens for fan studies, which lens, authors feel, should be held up to scrutiny, and the whiteness should be considered racially distinct on its own.

On the one hand, this is something that makes sense from a US-centric POV and which I can forgive in US-centric discussions. On the other hand, the authors call for "transcultural" inclusion and one of the authors is from India. Thus, I must object to "whiteness". Skin color does not culture make, and framing the discussion in terms of race alone is misleading.

To be clear: I'm Eastern European. American culture is so different from my own that I can't think of many things we have in common, from the way religious holidays are celebrated (do you dye eggs?) to which are important (Easter for religion, Christmas for gifts), to the way school is structured (I remember my 30 classmates in high school), to what minorities you encounter often (Hungarians! and Rroma people!), to one's relationship with one's own dominant culture (we hate it, but you're not allowed to hate it, too), to our cultural influence on a global scale (minor), we're just not that similar.

I expect more nuance from those who want transcultural inclusion, that's all.

<b>My next issue. Researcher dilemmas.</b> I didn't really connect with some of the fan/academic conundrums. I'm sure they're important to those who wrote about them, but some of them felt... easily resolved?

E.g., someone said that they believe that information that is publicly accessible on the internet should be researchable without approval from the fans themselves (it being publicly accessible and all). And, because I am lazy (and because I know fan authors who vanished from fandom), I tend to agree.

However, while in academic mode, they found themselves launching into a passionate condemnation of a youtuber who read fanfiction to poke fun at it, to their own surprise. After all, they believe that free public access to texts allows others to comment on those texts publicly, right? (I'm paraphrasing from memory.)

Now, to my mind, there's no contradiction in stance here. Research, analysis and commentary are one thing; open mockery is another. Of course, one has to moderate their response and think of what prompted it, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction; but it's alright to decide that, even if some things *can* be done, they *shouldn't* be done. It's alright to decide that rudeness isn't fine and should be discouraged, even if you believe that commentary is fine.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

<b>Overall, though.</b> As I've mentioned, the multiple voices involved in the conversation here really do make it feel like a <i>conversation</i>, and moreover, one that the reader could be a part of through their own research. It also feels like a community; I can imagine myself talking to any of these authors, whether it's to say "thank you for the resources" to Lies Lanckman and Cait Coker, to leave a note to Renee Ann Drouin saying "I'm so sorry you had to go through all that shit, omg", to saying "that stuff about iconography finally makes me understand a few things about art and is pretty fascinating" to EJ Nielsen, and so forth. The book's a good introduction, it's inviting and, while I do have points where I'm either on the fence or outright disagree with the authors, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in fan studies.

A big thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. "A Fan Studies Primer" is a truly wonderful and one of a kind book. Each and every essay is well-referenced, which gives you the opportunity to dive even deeper into the topic discussed in the chapter. I found the writing style in most of the essays to be a little too dry and heavy, but there are some which were written perfectly and kept you interested. While it discusses very important topic when it comes to fan studies such as ethnography, race and racism, colonialism, queerness, etc., I think it was mainly focused on the American audience/fandoms, which left me with the impression that more points of view could have been included or at least mentioned. I liked that at times the essays got controversial, I think this is what makes this primer relevant and truly informative. An awesome read for acafans, well, primarily the American ones.

I loved this. As someone who is a fan, who writes and consumes fanfiction, enjoys fanart, loves transformative work, with a background in media studies, this primer made me think that if I ever went back into academia, it would be media fandom focused.

These essays were thoughtful, well-referenced, and tended towards being concise and sharp. I very much appreciated that many of them drew attention to the invisibilised 'normative' whiteness within fandom, the problems this presents, and the oppression it continues. I also appreciate the effort of the editors to include the voices of people of colour, and I particularly enjoyed the essays particularly written by Kadian Pow and Alex Thomas. But all of these essays are excellent, thoughtful and encapsulate relevant and topical (and controversial in some cases) themes in fandom, academia and acafandom.

Some of the essays in this were quite dry and opaque, using a lot of jargon (I have never encountered the word 'multisited' before), while others are extremely accessible even for laypeople. It does presume that readers will have some awareness of the initial and most famous or well-known acafandom academic pieces, which I didn't, and I don't think that's necessarily a barrier to entry (if anything, it inspires curiosity). On a personal level, I enjoyed that this primer delegitimised antis, and shone a spotlight on their harmful and abusive behaviours.

I think anyone interested in fandom and topical fandom issues, especially around race, ethnography, colonialism, transnational communities and the different ways we see ourselves in fandom, or see fandom, or interact with media fandom, will find a lot useful in this primer. I'm really grateful for this review copy, and it's going to have a special place on my shelf, I wanted to quote a ton of it on Tumblr and in other fan spaces as I was reading. This work is *relevant.*