I'm ambivalent about whether I actually like this series, but I have just read Lies Sleeping and I definitely think Aaronovitch is doing interesting things with the idea of fannishness and where it can lead you (a big thing: Peter shares his fannishness, and gets along with other people's fannish traits, whereas Chorley imposes his). But a thing that stuck out at me about Lesley is that actually, she doesn't seem to have any fannishness. She never did. And she didn't gain it from associating with Chorley. She wanted Punch dead, entirely understandably (being taken over, mind-raped, partially destroyed and left in huge amounts of pain will do that to you), but I never got the sense that she gave the remotest fuck about the idea of bringing Merlin back/creating a world with Merlin in it. She doesn't have the imagination needed to create, and she didn't want to; she might have paid lip-service to the idea in company with Chorley, but at base she just wanted to destroy (Punch, the world) out of anger and a need for revenge. She killed Chorley without blinking when she realised he hadn't - not created a Merlin-compatible world - but killed Punch.

To me that's what makes her even more dangerous than Chorley. She won't try to replace the world with something she thinks is better because she can't imagine anything better. She'll just destroy it outright in an attempt to assuage her own hurts along with it. And now she doesn't have anyone she can position herself as 'the good bad guy' relative to, to moderate her choices...

Oddly enough, Beverley doesn't have much that sticks in my mind as fannishness either, but then she has other avenues for creation. Even Nightingale has his rugby, and Molly her Jamie Oliver cookery, but Lesley and Beverley don't map to the concept of fannishness in my mind.