Anderson's account of how nationalism is formed seems pretty convincing to me. He shows it as a capping layer on existing qualities like shared languages and administrative states—first spontaneously arising in the US, France and other countries, but soon recognized as a modular concept that could be willfully imported and applied to strengthen the legitimacy of the state.

Where this falls flat, though, is in explaining how nationalism continues to function after its creation. Because Anderson is arguing that nationalism layers on top of existing qualities (and replaces previous dynastic and other modes of understanding the state), it seems like a pretty content-thin conception. But to claim it continues on in this form is a little... unbelievable... especially when Anderson goes so far to claim that nationalism has no link to racism. At best, you could argue that it's an incidental and asymptomatic carrier—but I and many others would go further.

Also he has the annoying habit of occasionally including some French and other foreign language excerpts for flavor... without providing a translation? I hope they weren't too important to the argument!