Literatura científica selecionada sobre o tema "Wisconsin Central Company"

- Leonard Y. Andaya, J. Noorduyn, Bima en Sumbawa; Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Sultanaten Bima en Sumbawa door A. Ligtvoet en G.P. Rouffaer, Dordrecht-Holland/Providence-U.S.A.: Foris publications, ix, 187 pp, maps, indexes. - Ben Arps, Philip Yampolsky, Lokananta; A discography of the national recording company of Indonesia 1957-1985, Madison, Wisconsin: Center for Southeast Asian studies, University of Wisconsin, Bibliographical series No. 10, 1987. XIII + 433 pp. - Victoria M. Clara van Groenendael, Ward Keeler, Javanese shadow plays, Javanese selves, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987. xvii + 282 pages. Illustrations, photographs, bibliography, glossary, index. - Jean Gelman Taylor, Leonard Blussé, Strange company. Chinese settlers. Mestizo women and the Dutch in VOC Batavia. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Dordrecht: Foris publications, 1986. - V.J.H. Houben, R.B. van de Weijer, Tussen traditie en wetenschap; Geschiedbeoefening in niet-westerse culturen, Nijmegen 1987., P.G.B. Thissen, R. Schönberger (eds.) - V.J.H. Houben, J. van Goor, Indië/Indonesië; Van kolonie tot natie, HES, Utrecht 1987. - F.G.P. Jaquet, Th. van den End, Gereformeerde zending op Sumba (1859-1972), een bronenpublicatie, bewerkt door Th. van den End. Alphen aan den Rijn: Aska, 1987. XIV, 743 pp. Uitgave van de Raad voor de Zending der Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, de Zending der Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland en de Gereformeerde Zendingsbond in de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk. - R.E. Jordaan, Roland Werner, Bomoh/Dukun; The practices and philosophies of the traditional Malay healer, Berne; Institute of Ethnology (Studia ethnologica Bernensia 3), 1986. 106 pp., illustrations and photographs. - P.E. de Josselin de Jong, Werner Kraus, Zwischen reform und rebellion: Über die Entwicklung des Islams in Minangkabau (Westsumatra) zwischen den beiden Reformsbewegungen der Padri (1837) und der Modernisten (1908), Beiträge zur Südasien-Forschung, Südasien-Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Band 8S, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1984. 236 pp. - Wolfgang Marschall, Pietro Scarduelli, L’isola degli antenati di pietra; Strutture sociali e simboliche dei Nias dell’Indonesia, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 1986. IX + 232 pp., 22 pl., 28 figs. - Nigel Phillips, C. Skinner, The battle for Junk Ceylon; The syair Sultan Maulana, Dordrecht: Foris, 1985. viii + 325 pp. - Harry A. Poeze, Mavis Rose, Indonesia free; A political biography of Mohammad Hatta. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, viii + 245 pp. - D.J. Prentice, Elisabeth Tooker, Naming systems: The 1980 proceedings of the American Ethnological society, The American Ethnological society, 1984. vii + 107 pp., Harold C. Conklin (eds.) - Patricia D. Rueb, Christine Dobbin, Islamic revivalism in a changing peasant economy; Central Sumatra, 1784-1847, London/Malmö; Scandinavian Institute of Asian studies, Monograph series no. 47, 1987, 300 pages, illustrated. - P.C. Verton, Ank Klomp, Politics on Bonaire; An anthropological study. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1986.' [Translated by Dirk H. van der Elst] - Leontine E. Visser, Elisabeth Traube, Cosmology and social life; Ritual exchange among the Mambai of East Timor, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. xxiii + 298 pp., figs., photos, index.

Abstract Linked lives is a key tenet of the life course framework: Individuals age and develop in the company of a social convoy, or core set of relationships. The quality and quantity of relationships with friends and family are well-known predictors of physical and mental health outcomes, with research on how relationships affect cognitive health just beginning to blossom. This symposium presents four sociological studies of how positive and negative experiences in central, long-term personal relationships – marriages, parent-adult child relationships, and friendships – relate to cognition and the development of cognitive impairment over long periods of the life course, using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS). Stokes, Prasad, and Barooah find that experiences of loneliness in marriage are negatively related both to one’s own cognition and to the spouse’s cognition. Herd and Sicinski also highlight potential negative and gendered aspects of marriage, showing no differences in cognitive performance between married and single men, while married women’s cognition is not as strong as single women’s cognition. In parent-adult child relationships, Zhang and Liu demonstrate that social support has stronger positive effects, and social strain, stronger negative effects, for mothers as compared to fathers. Moorman and Pai examine friendships with non-kin, and find benefits of emotional and instrumental support to cognition in the long term. Discussant Lucas Hamilton will provide perspective from psychology, addressing ambivalence in relationships and the potential for bidirectional associations between social experience and cognitive function.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who progress on immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and anti-CD38 antibodies have poor outcomes, highlighting the need for novel targets for the disease. The BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy ide-cel previously demonstrated deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM (Raje N, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1726-1737; Munshi NC, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl] [abstract 8503]). In the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study, overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate, and median duration of response (DOR) were 73%, 33%, and 10.7 months, respectively, across the target dose levels of 150−450 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 82%, 39%, and 11.3 months at the highest target dose of 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells. In order to examine the effect of ide-cel as an earlier line of treatment, the multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study, KarMMa-3, was opened to compare ide-cel vs standard regimens in patients whose disease is refractory to the last line of therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of daratumumab [DARA], an immunomodulatory agent, and a PI [individually or in combinations]) are randomized 2:1 to receive ide-cel or one of the following standard regimens based on the patient's most recent regimen and investigator discretion: DARA + pomalidomide (POM) + dexamethasone (DEX; DPd), DARA + bortezomib + DEX (DVd), ixazomib + lenalidomide + DEX (IRd), carfilzomib + DEX (Kd), or elotuzumab + POM + DEX (EPd). Patients in the standard-regimen arm of this study are eligible to receive ide-cel after confirmed evidence of progressive disease. Randomization is stratified by age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 years), number of prior regimens (2 vs 3 or 4), and high-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p); yes vs no). Patients must be ≥ 18 years of age, have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, have disease that is refractory to the last treatment regimen, and have achieved minimal or better response to ≥ 1 prior regimen. Patients with nonsecretory myeloma, central nervous system involvement, prior allogeneic stem cell transplant, prior BCMA-targeted therapy, or prior gene or cellular therapy for cancer are excluded. Ide-cel is manufactured following leukapheresis and then infused (at dose levels from 150 to 450 × 106, but targeting 450 × 106, CAR+ T cells) after 2 days of rest following lymphodepletion with 3 days of fludarabine 30 mg/m2 + cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2. Up to 1 cycle of DPd, DVd, IRd, Kd, or EPd may be given as bridging therapy while ide-cel is being manufactured. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. The key secondary endpoints are ORR and overall survival. Other secondary endpoints include minimal residual disease, DOR, safety, pharmacokinetics, and quality of life. Immunogenicity and biomarkers are exploratory endpoints. KarMMa-3 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03651128. Disclosures Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria. Baz:Sanofi, Karypharm, Janssen, Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Karyopharm, janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, Sanofi, Abbvie Inc.: Research Funding. Cavo:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Callander:University of Wisconsin: Current Employment; Cellectar: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Atara: Consultancy; Celegene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez-Otero:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Massaro:bluebird bio: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ding:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Patel:BMS: Current Employment. Pittari:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Novick:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Giralt:OMEROS: Consultancy, Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; MILTENYI: Consultancy, Research Funding; ACTINUUM: Consultancy, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Consultancy, Honoraria; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Berdeja:Bioclinica: Consultancy; CURIS: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Lilly: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

This article examines the interplay of discourse, texts, and sustainability in the public hearing process for a Wisconsin city’s application to divert water from the Great Lakes of North America. The application is controversial and has been labeled as a ‘precedent’ setting action with respect to the Great Lakes Compact and water management. This article examines how texts are used to support positions on the diversion application and on sustainability. This analysis takes a discourse analytic approach to analyze local public hearings. The central question that is addressed is how do texts matter in sustainability efforts? The analysis indicates that texts are significant in supporting positions, but are associated with stances in different ways such that the same text may be used to support divergent positions. Meeting participants converged in agreeing on the importance of specific texts and of sustainability, but differed in how they related actions to texts.

Abstract Background: Diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD) is challenging in clinical practice due to variability in laboratory testing and clinical bleeding history. We investigated the prospective diagnosis of VWD in academic hematology clinics across the U.S. and Kingston, ON and report on the final cohort here. Methods: Subjects were enrolled as new consults to their hematologist for evaluation of a bleeding disorder from 11 centers. Laboratory results including VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and VWF platelet binding activity were determined both locally (VWF ristocetin cofactor activity [VWF:RCo] or VWF:GPIbM) and centrally (VWF:GPIbM) to determine the comparative effectiveness in VWD diagnosis. Some centers defined type 1 VWD with levels <30 and low VWF as VWF:Ag and/or activity ≥30 but less than lower limit of normal while others used only type 1 VWD. Bleeding scores were obtained using the ISTH bleeding assessment tool. DNA sequencing of all exons including intron/exon boundaries was performed and variants classified as presumably pathogenic if present in <1% of the general population using human genetic variation databases. Results: A total of 1826 subjects undergoing evaluation for VWD or a suspected bleeding disorder were prospectively enrolled. Median age, demographics, and bleeding score did not differ between the VWD and non VWD groups. Since pediatric subjects comprised a large segment of our cohort, bleeding scores were examined for subjects ≥18 years old and showed no difference with a median of 7 for those with and without VWD (p=NS). Subjects with VWD had no significant difference in VWF:Ag between local and central lab testing. Differences in VWF platelet binding was likely due to most local labs using VWF:RCo vs central lab testing with VWF:GPIbM. The diagnosis of VWD was determined locally. A total of 36% of subjects received a diagnosis of VWD. Of those, 63% received a diagnosis of type 1 VWD, 27% low VWF and 10% other (type 2A, 2B, 2M, 2N, 3 or unclassified). The percent of subjects with VWD was consistent across centers. One subject was diagnosed as type 3 VWD. For type 2 VWD, 4% were 2A, 1% 2B, 2% 2M, and <1% 2N. Pathogenic genetic variants in VWF were most common (71%) in type 2 and 3 VWD subjects as compared to type 1 (45%) or low VWF (25%) cohorts. We then separated these subjects into 3 groups by diagnostic testing: 1) type 1 VWD (using criteria of VWF:Ag or activity <30 by either local or central lab), 2) low VWF or 3) non VWD. Type 2 VWD required VWF activity/VWF:Ag ratio <0.6, loss of high molecular weight multimers for types 2A and 2B and increased VWF platelet binding for type 2B. When both local and central lab results were taken into account and study definitions applied, only 29% of the enrolled subjects had abnormal VWF levels. Of these, 78% had low VWF, 15% type 1, and 7% type 2 VWD. Median bleeding score for both the low VWF and type 1 cohorts was 4 (p=NS). Type 2 subjects with confirmed phenotypic diagnoses had a median bleeding score of 5 (p=NS compared to the type 1 or low VWF cohorts). Discussion: This unique large prospective study of bleeding disorder subjects, designed as an inception cohort, highlights the diagnosis of VWD but presents several clinical challenges: 1) The lack of difference in bleeding scores between VWD and non VWD suggests that bleeding symptoms are common and possibly due to other diagnoses or not necessarily related to VWF levels. 2) The variability in VWD diagnosis with borderline levels is common when local and central lab testing are applied, potentially due to varying use of the VWF:RCo vs VWF:GPIbM to assess platelet binding activity. The comparative effectiveness of methods of diagnosis will be highlighted by followup testing on these subjects. 3) As only 1/3 of subjects merited a VWD or low VWF diagnosis, mild bleeding may be the result of other conditions; platelet defects, vascular disorders, collagen defects, other unidentified mechanisms or potentially non-pathogenic. We hypothesize that the presence of bleeding symptoms increases the likelihood that a diagnosis of VWD will be made, regardless of the level. This cohort will continue to be followed longitudinally which may help elucidate the importance of serial VWF measurement. However, the stability of VWD diagnosis across centers in 1/3 of subjects suggests a broader application. Disclosures Friedman: Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. James:Bayer: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Ragni:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; MOGAM: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; SPARK: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rajpurkar:HEMA biologics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novonordisk: Honoraria. Shapiro:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Research Funding; Sangamo Biosciences: Consultancy; Bioverativ, a Sanofi Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OPKO: Research Funding; Bio Products Laboratory: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Other: International Network of Pediatric Hemophilia; Kedrion Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prometic Life Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sidonio:genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; grifols: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; uniqure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; csl behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; novo nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Montgomery:BCW: Patents & Royalties: GPIbM assay patent to the BloodCenter of Wisconsin. Abshire:CSL: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Background: SUMOylation, a post-translational modification analogous to ubiquitination, attaches a small, ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) to target proteins. SUMOylation plays a central role in the immune system by regulating type I interferon (IFN-I) expression, thereby functioning to constrain the innate immune response (Decque Nat Immunol 2016), and limit tumor immune surveillance. The SUMOylation pathway is often overexpressed in multiple myeloma (MM) and is associated with poor outcomes (Driscoll Blood 2010). TAK-981 is a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of SUMO-activating enzyme, which blocks the SUMOylation cascade (Langston J Med Chem 2021) and increases IFN-I production and signaling in innate immune cells (Nakamura AACR 2019). In ex vivo assays, TAK-981 activated the IFN-I pathway, increased phagocytic activity of monocyte-derived macrophages, and increased natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity via IFN-I signaling (Nakamura AACR 2019). The ability of TAK-981 to promote activation of macrophages and NK cells provides a mechanistic rationale for its use in combination with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reliant on antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis; in vivo experiments have demonstrated synergistic activity between TAK-981 and rituximab, and between TAK-981 and the anti-CD38 mAbs daratumumab (dara) (Nakamura SITC 2020) or mezagitamab (meza; TAK-079; Figure 1). Patients with MM who have disease refractory to the three most effective classes of anti-myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors [PIs], immunomodulatory drugs [IMiDs], and anti-CD38 mAbs) have a poor prognosis, with median survival 9.2 months (Gandhi Leukemia 2019). Given the incurable nature of advanced MM and the highly complex mechanisms of resistance, continued efforts to better understand MM biology at the time of relapse and to translate this into effective treatment combinations are needed. Combination therapies that engage the immune system to treat MM may offer substantial clinical benefit. Methods: To be eligible for this multicenter, open-label, Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT04776018), patients must have failed at least 3 prior lines of anti-myeloma therapy, have MM disease that is triple-class refractory (defined as refractory/intolerant to ≥1 PI and ≥1 IMiD, and refractory to ≥1 anti-CD38 mAb), and have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy. Prior CAR-T therapy is allowed. Patients will be assigned to TAK-981 plus subcutaneous (SC) meza (Phase 1 Part 1) or SC dara (dara and hyaluronidase-fihj; Phase 1 Part 2). The primary objectives of Phase 1b are to determine safety and tolerability, and to select the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule for TAK-981 with each mAb; secondary objectives are to evaluate preliminary antitumor activity, to characterize TAK-981 pharmacokinetics (PK), and to explore pharmacodynamic (PD) markers of TAK-981 target engagement and SUMOylation pathway inhibition. Approximately 30 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 1 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus meza (~15 patients per dosing schedule), and ~15 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 2 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus SC dara. The primary objective of Phase 2 is to evaluate the efficacy of TAK-981 at the RP2D in combination with an anti-CD38 mAb; ~36 patients will be enrolled. In Phase 1b, patients will receive TAK-981 via a 1-hour intravenous infusion either on days 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15 (twice weekly; BIW) or on days, 1, 8, 15, and 22 (weekly; QW) for 2x 28-day cycles, then 8x every other week, then monthly. Meza 600 mg SC or dara 1800 mg SC will be given 8x weekly, 8x every other week, then monthly, in a 28-day cycle (Figure 2). Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (max. 24 cycles). TAK-981 dose escalation will proceed from 60 mg BIW, a dose shown to be pharmacologically active in a first-in-human, single-agent TAK-981 study (TAK-981-1002; data on file). Dose escalation will be guided by Bayesian Optimal Internal Design with Informative Prior (iBOIN) plus consideration of other safety, clinical, PK, and PD data. The iBOIN design selects the true maximum tolerated dose (if any) with high accuracy by allocating more patients to dose levels with a prior dose-limiting toxicity probability closest to the target of 0.3. This study is currently enrolling patients, with the first patient dosed in May 2021. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccia: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yimer: Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment. Levy: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Dova: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Epizyme: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Abonour: Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene-BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mohan: Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Girnius: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau. Rosenbaum: Takeda: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Nadeem: Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berg: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Chao: Takeda: Current Employment. Berger: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Nakamura: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Song: Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Current Employment. Ward: Takeda: Current Employment. Proscurshim: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Study of the investigational agent TAK-981 in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj or the investigational agent mezagitamab (TAK-079).

Julia Kristeva’s famous essay Powers of Horror conceptualises the abject as that which “disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous” (4). While the social forms of the abject are clearly implicated here, Kristeva illustrates it primarily in corporeal terms, suggesting that filth, excrement, those things injected and expelled by the body, and disturb the epidermic surfaces of it (Grosz 244) are visible signifiers of the abject. In this semiotic schema, the corpse is the ultimate site of the abject because it is here that all meaning to the unity of body and mind, to the control of the border between inside and outside collapses (Kristeva 3). The corpse “signals the precarious grasp the subject has over its identity and bodily boundarie” (Grosz qtd. in Wright 198); the corpse excites fear and fascination as it represents the future for all of us- the unbecoming of the self. Kristeva’s views remind us how central the in tact body is to identity, and how much we seek reassurance in that which reifies the corps proper, despite our knowledge of its mutability. The exhibition of plastinated corpses, entitled The Amazing Human Body currently touring Australia, underscores secular society’s ongoing desire to gaze at that which we will eventually become, but constantly disavow. Unlike corpses that are preserved as life-like in the rituals of the funeral parlour, exhibitions of plastinated cadavers artistically frieze-frame corpses that are like and not like the body as we are invited to know and value it. In simultaneously exposing the inside and outside of bodies, and in posturing that which is both alien and familiar, the “amazing” human bodies on show fix an abject moment – one that does not “respect borders, positions, rules” (Kristeva 4). Western civilization experiences extreme unease with the dead body which has resulted in all kinds of aesthetic interventions to negate its ‘reality’ as decaying matter. Post death, behind the scenes bio-scientific techniques preserve in the corpse a ‘life-likeness’; morticians cosmetically enhance the dead body on display so as not to disturb the living. In identifying the role of undertakers in the ritual disposal of the corpse, Glennys Howarth comments that when the “funeral director assumes custody of the corpse it is contaminated in the sense that it is a receptacle for disease and a symbol of mortality” (147). The task of the embalmer then is to revile this contamination, to “revitalize characteristics of the corpse” which will “enhance human-likeness, for example, facial colour and elasticity of skin.” Howarth’s descriptions identify the dead body as an abject site and the embalmer as artist whose task is to resurrect/reconstitute the corpse propre to “supply, not merely a representation, but the physical presence of the individual” as they were in life; a physical immortality as it were (Howarth 147). Central to the embalmer’s and mortician’s art is an interesting paradox- the signification of death without physical corruption of the body. Howarth’s analysis of the “humanization techniques” in sustaining the fiction of living, points not only to “theatrical strategies” involved, but to the necessary concealment of the artist (the embalmer, the undertaker) in the process. The object is to re-create the fullness, not reveal the abjectness, of being. This preparation of the body for burial enacts what Michael Mendelson identifies as the “domestication of Death” which is to “assuage the unease Death provokes by making is something less than Death, by depicting it as an accessible and manageable place within the landscape that stretches out before us…”(191). German anatomist, Gunther von Hagens in 1977 was the first to perfect a technique called plastination capable of preserving corpses for thousands of years. His travelling exhibition of plastinated corpses, Bodyworlds, has been shown in major international cities and has generated facsimiles such as The Amazing Human Body attracting thousands of visitors wherever they are staged. Ostensibly set up for morally instructive purposes, to “teach children about human physiology and help adults lead healthier lives” (brochure for The Amazing Human Body), these exhibitions incite a voyeuristic curiosity about the dead. The exhibited corpses are not cushioned in coffins, looking life-like; rather they often resemble the enamelled body models that have been manufactured for medical and anatomical purposes or the mummified remains, periodically unearthed, of people from an earlier age. The difference however is that we know that the plastinated bodies are in fact real bodies donated by ‘real’ people before their deaths (the sub-title of the exhibition reads –The Anatomical Display of Real Human Bodies). At one level von Hagens and others who have followed him, are, like undertakers, concealing the reality of the decaying body. Entering the exhibition one is assured that there is no odour and, unlike the autopsy table, there is no visible visceral messiness – no ‘blood and gore’. These bodies, like those in Howarth’s funeral parlour have been preserved (in this instance by the technique of plastination), and they too, like those composed for burial or cremation are artistically sculpted into shape. (Plastination as described in the book distributed for sale, entitled The Amazing Human Body, involves Fixation, where “specimens are fixed with 5% formalin”; Dissection, where “specimens are dissected as required”; Dehydration, where “body fluid and fat are replaced by increasing concentrations of ethanol at room temperature, and then treated in a cold acetone bath”; Delipidation, where “Fat is replaced in a bath of warm acetone”; Vacuum Impregnation, where “acetone is replaced by plastic under a vacuum” and finally, Gas Curing, where “each structure is positioned and then gas cured” (10).) Often these shapes mimic the actions of the living – for example men (and they are mostly male) running or skiing, riding bicycles or playing chess. The difference however is that the plastinated corpses invariably disclose their artifice; obviously stage managed and somewhat fake, they fail to preserve the life-likeness of the corpse propre, yet at the same time they are vaguely familiar and we know, as we discreetly test the air for odours, that they are/were ‘real’. (In his analysis of von Hagens’s Bodyworlds, Jose Van Dijck contends that “plastination is an illustrative symptom of postmodern culture” in that it reveals how “categories such as body vs model, organic vs synthetic/prosthetic, fake and real have become obsolete”. These binaries are increasingly interchangeable in the postmodern world of virtual reality (62).) In disturbing the boundaries between the real and the not-real, these plastinated cadavers engender the kind of ambiguity and in between-ness that Kristeva claims for the abject. The Bodyworlds website celebrates this ‘abject d’art’ in its promotional spiel in phrasing that is uncannily close to Kristeva’s descriptors. Spectators, the site claims, are “gripped with a deeply moving fascination for what has been fixed in this novel way on the border between death and decomposition” (http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/anatomy_everyone.html). Other forms of aesthetic delivery of the cadavers in these exhibitions also highlight the abject. Many displays of bodies and body parts evince gross disturbance to the epidermic surface of the body, a visible and violent tampering with its wholeness, to reveal what lies beneath. Bodies have been sliced up, dissected, cut in half; skin has been removed to display cross sections through limbs, or flayed off to reveal central nervous systems; trunks have been cut out in horizontal planes and set out in neat racks that resemble meat trays, heads and trunks have been sliced in vertical planes, pressed between sheets of plastic and hung from hooks resembling the animal body parts in cold storage at the back of butchers’ shops. Perhaps most compelling is the display of an entire body skin complete with preserved subcutaneous tissue, revealing on close inspection, nipples and navel hole and occasionally body hair. The skin is the most abject of sites; a reminder of the body’s permeable boundaries. (One of Gunther von Hagens’s plastinated cadavers is “Man with Skin on his Arms” featuring a body of a man holding up his entire skin, which van Dijck points out is an “imitation of a representation” of Vesalius’s copper engraving in Anatomia Humani Corporis (1685) of a man carrying aloft his own skin “as if he has just taken off his coat” (53).) On a final point, the combination of physical, spatial and linguistic signs that constitute The Amazing Human Body; The Anatomical Display of Real Human Bodies potently, even amusingly, signifies the flimsiness and of the border between life and death, dirt and decontamination. In Kristeva’s words – “refuse and corpses show me what I permanently thrust aside in order to live” (3). The annotations accompanying the exhibits are pitched in pseudo scientific/bio-medical language to allay dread and anxiety about death by fixing the abject within an assuaging and ‘legitimate’ discursive frame, while the coffee and cake stall outside the walls of the exhibition space, offers us the comforting condiments for corporeal continuity. References Grosz, Elizabeth. “Bodies – Cities.” In Sexuality and Space. Ed Beatrice Colomina. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992. 241-253. Howarth, Glennys. Last Rites. NY: Baywood Publishing Company, 1996. Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1982. Mendelson, Michael “The Body in the Next Room” Images of the Corpse from Renaissance to Cyberspace. Ed. E. Klaver. Wisconsin: Univeristy of Wisconsin/Popular Press, 2004. 186-205. Van Dijck, Jose. The Transparent Body: A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging. Seattle & London: U of Washington P. Wright, Elizabeth. Ed. Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Zhang, Shu qin, ed. The Amazing Human Body: The Anatomical Display of Real Human Bodies. No publication details provided, 2006. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Muller, Vivienne. "Abject d’Art." M/C Journal 9.5 (2006). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0610/04-muller.php>. APA Style Muller, V. (Nov. 2006) "Abject d’Art," M/C Journal, 9(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0610/04-muller.php>.

Online shopping is all the rage these days and the murderabilia industry in particular, which specializes in selling serial killer artifacts, is booming. At Spectre Studios, sculptor David Johnson sells flexible plastic action figures of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy and plans to produce a figure of Jack the Ripper in the future. Although some might think that making action figures of serial killers is tasteless, Johnson hastens to assure the potential consumer that he does have standards: “I wouldn’t do Osama bin Laden . . . I have some personal qualms about that” (Robinson). At Serial Killer Central, you can buy a range of items made by serial killers themselves, including paintings and drawings by Angelo Buono (one of the “Hillside Stranglers”) and Henry Lee Lucas. For the more discerning consumer, Supernaught.com charges a mere $300 for a brick from Dahmer’s apartment building, while a lock of Charles Manson’s hair is a real bargain at $995, shipping and handling not included. The sale of murderabilia is just a small part of the huge serial killer industry that has become a defining feature of American popular culture over the last twenty-five years. This industry is, in turn, a prime example of what Mark Seltzer has described as “wound culture,” consisting of a “public fascination with torn and open bodies and torn and opened persons, a collective gathering around shock, trauma, and the wound” (1). According to Seltzer, the serial killer is “one of the superstars of our wound culture” (2) and his claim is confirmed by the constant stream of movies, books, magazines, television shows, websites, t-shirts, and a tsunami of ephemera that has given the figure of the serial murderer an unparalleled degree of visibility and fame in the contemporary American public sphere. In a culture defined by celebrity, serial killers like Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy are the biggest stars of all, instantly recognized by the vast majority of Americans. Not surprisingly, murderabilia has been the focus of a sustained critique by the (usually self-appointed) guardians of ‘decency’ in American culture. On January 2, 2003 The John Walsh Show, the daytime television vehicle of the long-time host of America’s Most Wanted, featured an “inside look at the world of ‘murderabilia,’ which involves the sale of artwork, personal effects and letters from well-known killers” (The John Walsh Show Website). Featured guests included Andy Kahan, Director of the Mayor’s Crime Victim Assistance Office in Houston, Texas; ‘Thomas,’ who was horrified to find hair samples from “The Railroad Killer,” the individual who killed his mother, for sale on the Internet; Elmer Wayne Henley, a serial killer who sells his artwork to collectors; Joe, who runs “Serial Killer Central” and sells murderabilia from a wide range of killers, and Harold Schechter, a professor of English at Queens College, CUNY. Despite the program’s stated intention to “look at both sides of the issue,” the show was little more than a jeremiad against the murderabilia industry, with the majority of airtime being given to Andy Kahan and to the relatives of crime victims. The program’s bias was not lost on many of those who visited Joe’s Serial Killer Central site and left messages on the message board on the day The John Walsh Show aired. There were some visitors who shared Walsh’s perspective. A message from “serialkillersshouldnotprofit@aol.com,” for example, stated that “you will rot in hell with these killers,” while “Smithpi@hotmail.com” had a more elaborate critique: “You should pull your site off the net. I just watched the John Walsh show and your [sic] a fucking idiot. I hope your [sic] never a victim, because if you do [sic] then you would understand what all those people were trying to tell you. You [sic] a dumb shit.” Most visitors, however, sympathized with the way Joe had been treated on the show: “I as well [sic] saw you on the John Walsh show, you should [sic] a lot of courage going on such a one sided show, and it was shit that they wouldnt [sic] let you talk, I would have walked off.” But whether the comments were positive or negative, one thing was clear: The John Walsh Show had created a great deal of interest in the Serial Killer Central site. As one of the messages put it, “I think that anything [sic] else he [John Walsh] has put a spark in everyones [sic] curiousity [sic] . . . I have noticed that you have more hits on your page today than any others [sic].” Apparently, even the most explicit rejection and condemnation of serial killer celebrity finds itself implicated in (and perhaps even unwittingly encouraging the growth of) that celebrity. John Walsh’s attack on the murderabilia industry was the latest skirmish in a campaign that has been growing steadily since the late 1990s. One of the campaign’s initial targets was the internet trading site eBay, which was criticized for allowing serial killer-related products to be sold online. In support of such criticism, conservative victims’ rights and pro-death penalty organizations like “Justice For All” organized online petitions against eBay. In November 2000, Business Week Online featured an interview with Andy Kahan in which he argued that the online sale of murderabilia should be suppressed: “The Internet just opens it all up to millions and millions more potential buyers and gives easy access to children. And it sends a negative message to society. What does it say about us? We continue to glorify killers and continue to put them in the mainstream public. That’s not right” (Business Week). Eventually bowing to public pressure, eBay decided to ban the sale of murderabilia items in May 2001, forcing the industry underground, where it continues to be pursued by the likes of John Walsh. Apart from highlighting how far the celebrity culture around serial killers has developed (so that one can now purchase the nail clippings and hair of some killers, as if they are religious icons), focusing on the ongoing debate around the ethics of murderabilia also emphasizes how difficult it is to draw a neat line between those who condemn and those who participate in that culture. Quite apart from the way in which John Walsh’s censoriousness brought more visitors to the Serial Killer Central site, one could also argue that few individuals have done more to disseminate information about violent crime in general and serial murder in particular to mainstream America than John Walsh. Of course, this information is presented in the unimpeachably moral context of fighting crime, but controversial features of America’s Most Wanted, such as the dramatic recreations of crime, pander to the same prurient public interest in crime that the program simultaneously condemns. An ABCNews.Com article on murderabilia inadvertently highlights the difficulty of distinguishing a legitimate from an illegitimate interest in serial murder by quoting Rick Staton, one of the biggest collectors and dealers of murderabilia in the United States, who emphasizes that the people he sells to are not “ghouls and creeps [who] crawl out of the woodwork”, but rather “pretty much your average Joe Blow.” Even his family, Staton goes on to say, who profess to be disgusted by what he does, act very differently in practice: “The minute they step into this room, they are glued to everything in here and they are asking questions and they are genuinely intrigued by it . . . So it makes me wonder: Am I the one who is so abnormal, or am I pretty normal?” (ABCNews.Com). To answer Staton’s question, we need to go back to 1944, when sociologist Leo Lowenthal published an essay entitled “Biographies in Popular Magazines,” an essay he later reprinted as a chapter in his 1961 book, Literature, Popular Culture And Society, under a new title: “The Triumph of Mass Idols.” Lowenthal argues that biographies in popular magazines underwent a striking change between 1901 and 1941, a change that signals the emergence of a new social type. According to Lowenthal, the earlier biographies indicate that American society’s heroes at the time were “idols of production” in that “they stem from the productive life, from industry, business, and natural sciences. There is not a single hero from the world of sports and the few artists and entertainers either do not belong to the sphere of cheap or mass entertainment or represent a serious attitude toward their art” (112-3). Sampling biographies in magazines from 1941, however, Lowenthal reaches a very different conclusion: “We called the heroes of the past ‘idols of production’: we feel entitled to call the present-day magazine heroes ‘idols of consumption’” (115). Unlike the businessmen, industrialists and scientists who dominated the earlier sample, almost every one of 1941’s heroes “is directly, or indirectly, related to the sphere of leisure time: either he does not belong to vocations which serve society’s basic needs (e.g., the worlds of entertainment and sport), or he amounts, more or less, to a caricature of a socially productive agent” (115). Lowenthal leaves his reader in no doubt that he sees the change from “idols of production” to “idols of consumption” as a serious decline: “If a student in some very distant future should use popular magazines of 1941 as a source of information as to what figures the American public looked to in the first stages of the greatest crisis since the birth of the Union, he would come to a grotesque result . . . the idols of the masses are not, as they were in the past, the leading names in the battle of production, but the headliners of the movies, the ball parks, and the night clubs” (116). With Lowenthal in mind, when one considers the fact that the serial killer is generally seen, in Richard Tithecott’s words, as “deserving of eternal fame, of media attention on a massive scale, of groupies” (144), one is tempted to describe the advent of celebrity serial killers as a further decline in the condition of American culture’s “mass idols.” The serial killer’s relationship to consumption, however, is too complex to allow for such a hasty judgment, as the murderabilia industry indicates. Throughout the edition of The John Walsh Show that attacked murderabilia, Walsh showed clips of Collectors, a recent documentary about the industry. Collectors is distributed by a small company named Abject Films and on their website the film’s director, Julian P. Hobbs, discusses some of the multiple connections between serial killing and consumerism. Hobbs points out that the serial killer is connected with consumerism in the most basic sense that he has become a commodity, “a merchandising phenomenon that rivals Mickey Mouse. From movies to television, books to on-line, serial killers are packaged and consumed en-masse” (Abject Films). But as Hobbs goes on to argue, serial killers themselves can be seen as consumers, making any representations of them implicated in the same consumerist logic: “Serial killers come into being by fetishizing and collecting artifacts – usually body parts – in turn, the dedicated collector gathers scraps connected with the actual events and so, too, a documentary a collection of images” (Abject Films). Along with Rick Staton, Hobbs implies that no one can avoid being involved with consumerism in relation to serial murder, even if one’s reasons for getting involved are high-minded. For example, when Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison in 1994, the families of his victims were delighted but his death also presented them with something of a problem. Throughout the short time Dahmer was in prison, there had been persistent rumors that he was in negotiations with both publishers and movie studios about selling his story. If such a deal had ever been struck, legal restrictions would have prevented Dahmer from receiving any of the money; instead, it would have been distributed among his victims’ families. Dahmer’s murder obviously ended this possibility, so the families explored another option: going into the murderabilia business by auctioning off Dahmer’s property, including such banal items as his toothbrush, but also many items he had used in commission of the murders, such as a saw, a hammer, the 55-gallon vat he used to decompose the bodies, and the refrigerator where he stored the hearts of his victims. Although the families’ motives for suggesting this auction may have been noble, they could not avoid participating in what Mark Pizzato has described as “the prior fetishization of such props and the consumption of [Dahmer’s] cannibal drama by a mass audience” (91). When the logic of consumerism dominates, is anyone truly innocent, or are there just varying degrees of guilt, of implication? The reason why it is impossible to separate neatly ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ expressions of interest in famous serial killers is the same reason why the murderabilia industry is booming; in the words of a 1994 National Examiner headline: “Serial Killers Are as American as Apple Pie.” Christopher Sharrett has suggested that: “Perhaps the fetish status of the criminal psychopath . . . is about recognizing the serial killer/mass murderer not as social rebel or folk hero . . . but as the most genuine representative of American life” (13). The enormous resistance to recognizing the representativeness of serial killers in American culture is fundamental to the appeal of fetishizing serial killers and their artifacts. As Sigmund Freud has explained, the act of disavowal that accompanies the formation of a fetish allows a perception (in this case, the Americanness of serial killers) to persist in a different form rather than being simply repressed (352-3). Consequently, just like the sexual fetishists discussed by Freud, although we may recognize our interest in serial killers “as an abnormality, it is seldom felt by [us] as a symptom of an ailment accompanied by suffering” (351). On the contrary, we are usually, in Freud’s words, “quite satisfied” (351) with our interest in serial killers precisely because we have turned them into celebrities. It is our complicated relationship with celebrities, affective as well as intellectual, composed of equal parts admiration and resentment, envy and contempt, that provides us with a lexicon through which we can manage our appalled and appalling fascination with the serial killer, contemporary American culture’s ultimate star. References ABCNews.Com. “Killer Collectibles: Inside the World of ‘Murderabilia.” 7 Nov. 2001. American Broadcasting Company. 9 May 2003 http://www.abcnews.com>. AbjectFilms.Com. “Collectors: A Film by Julian P. Hobbs.” Abject Films. 9 May 2003 http://www.abjectfilms.com/collectors.html>. BusinessWeek Online. 20 Nov. 2000. Business Week. 9 May 2003 http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708056.htm>. Freud, Sigmund. “Fetishism.” On Sexuality. Trans. James Strachey. London: Penguin Books, 1977. 351-7. The John Walsh Show. Ed. Click Active Media. 2 Jan. 2003. 9 May 2003 http://www.johnwalsh.tv/cgi-bin/topics/today/cgi?id=90>. Lowenthal, Leo. “The Triumph of Mass Idols.” Literature, Popular Culture and Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1961. 109-40. National Examiner. “Serial Killers Are as American as Apple Pie.” 7 Jun. 1994: 7. Pizzato, Mark. “Jeffrey Dahmer and Media Cannibalism: The Lure and Failure of Sacrifice.” Mythologies of Violence in Postmodern Media. Ed. Christopher Sharrett. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1999. 85-118. Robinson, Bryan. “Murder Incorporated: Denver Sculptor’s Serial Killer Action Figures Bringing in Profits and Raising Ire.” ABCNews.Com 25 Mar. 2002. American Broadcasting Company. 27 Apr. 2003 http://abcnews.com/>. Seltzer, Mark. Serial Killers: Death and Life in America’s Wound Culture. New York: Routledge, 1998. Sharrett, Christopher. “Introduction.” Mythologies of Violence in Postmodern Media. Ed. Christopher Sharrett. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1999. 9-20. Tithecott, Richard. Of Men and Monsters: Jeffrey Dahmer and the Construction of the Serial Killer. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1997. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Schmid, David. "Murderabilia: Consuming Fame." M/C Journal 7.5 (2004). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0411/10-schmid.php>. APA Style Schmid, D. (Nov. 2004) "Murderabilia: Consuming Fame," M/C Journal, 7(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0411/10-schmid.php>.

Image 1: A Little Free Library. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.IntroductionLittle Free Libraries give people a reason to stop and exchange things they love: books. It seemed like a really good way to build a sense of community.Dannette Lank, Little Free Library steward, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, 2013 (Rumage)Against a backdrop of stagnant literacy rates and enduring perceptions of urban decay and the decline of communities in cities (NCES, “Average Literacy”; NCES, “Average Prose”; Putnam 25; Skogan 8), legions of Little Free Libraries (LFLs) have sprung up across the United States between 2009 and the present. LFLs are small, often homemade structures housing books and other physical media for passersby to choose a book to take or leave a book to share with others. People have installed the structures in front of homes, schools, libraries, churches, fire and police stations, community gardens, and in public parks. There are currently 50,000 LFLs around the world, most of which are in the continental United States (Aldrich, “Big”). LFLs encompass building in multiple senses of the term; LFLs are literally tiny buildings to house books and people use the structures for building neighbourhood social capital. The organisation behind the movement cites “building community” as one of its three core missions (Little Free Library). Rowan Moore, theorising humans’ reasons for building, argues desire and emotion are central (16). The LFL movement provides evidence for this claim: stewards erect LFLs based on hope for increased literacy and a desire to build community through their altruistic actions. This article investigates how LFLs build urban community and explores barriers to the endeavour, specifically municipal building and right of way ordinances used in attempts to eradicate the structures. It also examines local responses to these municipal actions and potential challenges to traditional public libraries brought about by LFLs, primarily the decrease of visits to public libraries and the use of LFLs to argue for defunding of publicly provided library services. The work argues that LFLs build community in some places but may threaten other community services. This article employs qualitative content analysis of 261 stewards’ comments about their registered LFLs on the organisation’s website drawn from the two largest cities in a Midwestern state and an interview with an LFL steward in a village in the same state to analyse how LFLs build community. The two cities, located in the state where the LFL movement began, provide a cross section of innovators, early adopters, and late adopters of the book exchanges, determined by their registered charter numbers. Press coverage and municipal documents from six cities across the US gathered through a snowball sample provide data about municipal challenges to LFLs. Blog posts penned by practising librarians furnish some opinions about the movement. This research, while not a representative sample, identifies common themes and issues around LFLs and provides a basis for future research.The act of building and curating an LFL is a representation of shared beliefs about literacy, community, and altruism. Establishing an LFL is an act of civic participation. As Nico Carpentier notes, while some civic participation is macro, carried out at the level of the nation, other participation is micro, conducted in “the spheres of school, family, workplace, church, and community” (17). Ruth H. Landman investigates voluntary activities in the city, including community gardening, and community bakeries, and argues that the people associated with these projects find themselves in a “denser web of relations” than previously (2). Gretchen M. Herrmann argues that neighbourhood garage sales, although fleeting events, build an enduring sense of community amongst participants (189). Ray Oldenburg contends that people create associational webs in what he calls “great good places”; third spaces separate from home and work (20-21). Little Free Libraries and Community BuildingEmotion plays a central role in the decision to become an LFL steward, the person who establishes and maintains the LFL. People recount their desire to build a sense of community and share their love of reading with neighbours (Charter 4684; Charter 8212; Charter 9437; Charter 9705; Charter 16561). One steward in the study reported, “I love books and I want to be able to help foster that love in our neighbourhood as well” (Charter 4369). Image 2: A Little Free Library, bench, water fountain, and dog’s water bowl for passersby to enjoy. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.Relationships and emotional ties are central to some people’s decisions to have an LFL. The LFL website catalogues many instances of memorial LFLs, tributes to librarians, teachers, and avid readers. Indeed, the first Little Free Library, built by Todd Bol in 2009, was a tribute to his late mother, a teacher who loved reading (“Our History”). In the two city study area, ten LFLs are memorials, allowing bereaved families to pass on a loved one’s penchant for sharing books and reading (Charter 1235; Charter 1309; Charter 4604; Charter 6219; Charter 6542; Charter 6954; Charter 10326; Charter 16734; Charter 24481; Charter 30369). In some cases, urban neighbours come together to build, erect, and stock LFLs. One steward wrote: “Those of us who live in this friendly neighborhood collaborated to design[,] build and paint a bungalow themed library” to match the houses in the neighbourhood (Charter 2532). Another noted: “Our neighbor across the street is a skilled woodworker, and offered to build the library for us if we would install it in our yard and maintain it. What a deal!” (Charter 18677). Community organisations also install and maintain LFLs, including 21 in the study population (e.g. Charter 31822; Charter 27155).Stewards report increased communication with neighbours due to their LFLs. A steward noted: “We celebrated the library’s launch on a Saturday morning with neighbors of all ages. We love sitting on our front porch and catching up with the people who stop to check out the books” (Charter 9673). Another exclaimed:within 24 hours, before I had time to paint it, my Little Free Library took on a life of its own. All of a sudden there were lots of books in it and people stopping by. I wondered where these books came from as I had not put any in there. Little kids in the neighborhood are all excited about it and I have met neighbors that I had never seen before. This is going to be fun! (Charter 15981)LFLs build community through social interaction and collaboration. This occurs when neighbours come together to build, install, and fill the structures. The structures also open avenues for conversation between neighbours who had no connection previously. Like Herrmann’s neighbourhood garage sales, LFLs create and maintain social ties between neighbours and link them by the books they share. Additionally, when neighbours gather and communicate at the LFL structure, they create a transitory third space for “informal public life”, where people can casually interact at a nearby location (Oldenburg 14, 288).Building Barriers, Creating CommunityThe erection of an LFL in an urban neighbourhood is not, however, always a welcome sight. The news analysis found that LFLs most often come to the attention of municipal authorities via citizen complaints, which lead to investigations and enforcement of ordinances. In Kansas, a neighbour called an LFL an “eyesore” and an “illegal detached structure” (Tapper). In Wisconsin, well-meaning future stewards contacted their village authorities to ask about rules, inadvertently setting off a six-month ban on LFLs (Stingl; Rumage). Resulting from complaints and inquiries, municipalities regulated, and in one case banned, LFLs, thus building barriers to citizens’ desires to foster community and share books with neighbours.Municipal governments use two major areas of established code to remove or prohibit LFLs: ordinances banning unapproved structures in residents’ yards and those concerned with obstructions to right of ways when stewards locate the LFLs between the public sidewalk and street.In the first instance, municipal ordinances prohibit either front yard or detached structures. Controversies over these ordinances and LFLs erupted in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, in 2012; Leawood, Kansas, in 2014; Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2015; and Dallas, Texas, in 2015. The Village of Whitefish Bay banned LFLs due to an ordinance prohibiting “front yard structures,” including mailboxes (Sanburn; Stingl). In Leawood, the city council argued that an LFL, owned by a nine-year-old boy, violated an ordinance that forbade the construction of any detached structures without city council permission. In Shreveport, the stewards of an LFL received a cease and desist letter from city council for having an “accessory structure” in the front yard (LaCasse; Burris) and Dallas officials knocked on a steward’s front door, informing her of a similar breach (Kellogg).In the second instance, some urban municipalities argued that LFLs are obstructions that block right of ways. In Lincoln, Nebraska, the public works director noted that the city “uses the area between the sidewalk and the street for snow storage in the winter, light poles, mailboxes, things like that.” The director continued: “And I imagine these little libraries are meant to congregate people like a water cooler, but we don’t want people hanging around near the road by the curb” (Heady). Both Lincoln in 2014 and Los Angeles (LA), California, in 2015, cited LFLs for obstructions. In Lincoln, the city notified the Southminster United Methodist Church that their LFL, located between the public sidewalk and street, violated a municipal ordinance (Sanburn). In LA, the Bureau of Street Services notified actor Peter Cook that his LFL, situated in the right of way, was an “obstruction” that Cook had to remove or the city would levy a fine (Moss). The city agreed at a hearing to consider a “revocable permit” for Cook’s LFL, but later denied its issuance (Condes).Stewards who found themselves in violation of municipal ordinances were able to harness emotion and build outrage over limits to individuals’ ability to erect LFLs. In Kansas, the stewards created a Facebook page, Spencer’s Little Free Library, which received over 31,000 likes and messages of support. One comment left on the page reads: “The public outcry will force those lame city officials to change their minds about it. Leave it to the stupid government to rain on everybody’s parade” (“Good”). Children’s author Daniel Handler sent a letter to the nine-year-old steward, writing as Lemony Snicket, “fighting against librarians is immoral and useless in the face of brave and noble readers such as yourself” (Spencer’s). Indeed, the young steward gave a successful speech to city hall arguing that the body should allow the structures because “‘lots of people in the neighborhood used the library and the books were always changing. I think it’s good for Leawood’” (Bauman). Other local LFL supporters also attended council and spoke in favour of the structures (Harper). In LA, Cook’s neighbours started a petition that gathered over 100 signatures, where people left comments including, “No to bullies!” (Lopez). Additionally, neighbours gathered to discuss the issue (Dana). In Shreveport, neighbours left stacks of books in their front yards, without a structure housing them due to the code banning accessory structures. One noted, “I’m basically telling the [Metropolitan Planning Commission] to go sod off” (Friedersdorf; Moss). LFL proponents reacted with frustration and anger at the perceived over-reach of the government toward harmless LFLs. In addition to the actions of neighbours and supporters, the national and local press commented on the municipal constraints. The LFL movement has benefitted from a significant amount of positive press in its formative years, a press willing to publicise and criticise municipal actions to thwart LFL development. Stewards’ struggles against municipal bureaucracies building barriers to LFLs makes prime fodder for the news media. Herbert J. Gans argues an enduring value in American news is “the preservation of the freedom of the individual against the encroachments of nation and society” (50). The juxtaposition of well-meaning LFL stewards against municipal councils and committees provided a compelling opportunity to illustrate this value.National media outlets, including Time (Sanburn), Christian Science Monitor (LaCasse), and The Atlantic, drew attention to the issue. Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf critically noted:I wish I was writing this to merely extol this trend [of community building via LFLs]. Alas, a subset of Americans are determined to regulate every last aspect of community life. Due to selection bias, they are overrepresented among local politicians and bureaucrats. And so they have power, despite their small-mindedness, inflexibility, and lack of common sense so extreme that they’ve taken to cracking down on Little Free Libraries, of all things. (Friedersdorf, n.p.)Other columnists mirrored this sentiment. Writing in the LA Times, one commentator sarcastically wrote that city officials were “cracking down on one of the country’s biggest problems: small community libraries where residents share books” (Schaub). Journalists argued this was government overreach on non-issues rather than tackling larger community problems, such as income inequality, homelessness, and aging infrastructure (Solomon; Schaub). The protests and negative press coverage led to, in the case of the municipalities with front yard and detached structure ordinances, détente between stewards and councils as the latter passed amendments permitting and regulating LFLs. Whitefish Bay, Leawood, and Shreveport amended ordinances to allow for LFLs, but also to regulate them (Everson; Topil; Siegel). Ordinances about LFLs restricted their number on city blocks, placement on private property, size and height, as well as required registration with the municipality in some cases. Lincoln officials allowed the church to relocate the LFL from the right of way to church property and waived the $500 fine for the obstruction violation (Sanburn). In addition to the amendments, the protests also led to civic participation and community building including presentations to city council, a petition, and symbolic acts of defiance. Through this protest, neighbours create communities—networks of people working toward a common goal. This aspect of community building around LFLs was unintentional but it brought people together nevertheless.Building a Challenge to Traditional Libraries?LFL marketing and communication staff member Margaret Aldrich suggests in The Little Free Library Book that LFLs are successful because they are “gratifyingly doable” projects that can be accomplished by an individual (16). It is this ease of building, erecting, and maintaining LFLs that builds concern as their proliferation could challenge aspects of library service, such as public funding and patron visits. Some professional librarians are in favour of the LFLs and are stewards themselves (Charter 121; Charter 2608; Charter 9702; Charter 41074; Rumage). Others envision great opportunities for collaboration between traditional libraries and LFLs, including the library publicising LFLs and encouraging their construction as well as using LFLs to serve areas without, or far from, a public library (Svehla; Shumaker). While lauding efforts to build community, some professional librarians question the nomenclature used by the movement. They argue the phrase Little Free Libraries is inaccurate as libraries are much more than random collections of books. Instead, critics contend, the LFL structures are closer to book swaps and exchanges than actual libraries, which offer a range of services such as Internet access, digital materials, community meeting spaces, and workshops and programming on a variety of topics (American Library Association; Annoyed Librarian). One university reference and instruction librarian worries about “the general public’s perception and lumping together of little free libraries and actual ‘real’ public libraries” (Hardenbrook). By way of illustration, he imagines someone asking, “‘why do we need our tax money to go to something that can be done for FREE?’” (Hardenbrook). Librarians holding this perspective fear the movement might add to a trend of neoliberalism, limiting or ending public funding for libraries, as politicians believe that the localised, individual solutions can replace publicly funded library services. This is a trend toward what James Ferguson calls “responsibilized” citizens, those “deployed to produce governmentalized results that do not depend on direct state intervention” (172). In other countries, this shift has already begun. In the United Kingdom (UK), governments are devolving formerly public services onto community groups and volunteers. Lindsay Findlay-King, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen trace the impacts of the 2012 Localism Act in the UK, which caused “sport and library asset transfers” (12) to community and volunteer groups who were then responsible for service provision and, potentially, facility maintenance as well. Rather than being in charge of a “doable” LFL, community groups and volunteers become the operators of much larger facilities. Recent efforts in the US to privatise library services as governments attempt to cut budgets and streamline services (Streitfeld) ground this fear. Image 3: “Take a Book, Share a Book,” a Little Free Library motto. Image credit: Nadine Kozak. LFLs might have real consequences for public libraries. Another potential unintended consequence of the LFLs is decreasing visits to public libraries, which could provide officials seeking to defund them with evidence that they are no longer relevant or necessary. One LFL steward and avid reader remarked that she had not used her local public library since 2014 because “I was using the Little Free Libraries” (Steward). Academics and librarians must conduct more research to determine what impact, if any, LFLs are having on visits to traditional public libraries. ConclusionLittle Free Libraries across the United States, and increasingly in other countries, have generated discussion, promoted collaboration between neighbours, and led to sharing. In other words, they have built communities. This was the intended consequence of the LFL movement. There, however, has also been unplanned community building in response to municipal threats to the structures due to right of way, safety, and planning ordinances. The more threatening concern is not the municipal ordinances used to block LFL development, but rather the trend of privatisation of publicly provided services. While people are celebrating the community built by the LFLs, caution must be exercised lest central institutions of the public and community, traditional public libraries, be lost. Academics and communities ought to consider not just impact on their local community at the street level, but also wider structural concerns so that communities can foster many “great good places”—the Little Free Libraries and traditional public libraries as well.ReferencesAldrich, Margaret. “Big Milestone for Little Free Library: 50,000 Libraries Worldwide.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization. 4 Nov. 2016. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/big-milestone-for-little-free-library-50000-libraries-worldwide/>.Aldrich, Margaret. The Little Free Library Book: Take a Book, Return a Book. Minneapolis, MN: Coffee House Press, 2015.Annoyed Librarian. “How to Protect Little Free Libraries.” Library Journal Blog 9 Jul. 2015. 26 Mar. 2017 <http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2015/07/09/how-to-protect-little-free-libraries/>.American Library Association. “Public Library Use.” State of America’s Libraries: A Report from the American Library Association (2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06>.Bauman, Caroline. “‘Little Free Libraries’ Legal in Leawood Thanks to 9-year-old Spencer Collins.” The Kansas City Star 7 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article687562.html>.Burris, Alexandria. “First Amendment Issues Surface in Little Free Library Case.” Shreveport Times 5 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/02/05/expert-use-zoning-law-clashes-first-amendment/22922371/>.Carpentier, Nico. Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect, 2011.Charter 121. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1235. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1309. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2532. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2608. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4604. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4684. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6219. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6542. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6954. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 8212. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9437. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9673. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9702. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9705. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 10326. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 15981. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16561. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16734. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 18677. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 24481. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 27155. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 30369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 31822. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 41074. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Condes, Yvonne. “Save the Little Library!” MomsLA 10 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://momsla.com/save-the-micro-library/>.Dana. “The Tenn-Mann Library Controversy, Part 3.” Read with Dana (30 Jan. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://readwithdana.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/the-tenn-mann-library-controversy-part-three/>.Everson, Jeff. “An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 106 of the Shreveport Code of Ordinances Relative to Outdoor Book Exchange Boxes, and Otherwise Providing with Respect Thereto.” City of Shreveport, Louisiana 9 Oct. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/ksla/pdf/LFLordinance.pdf>.Ferguson, James. “The Uses of Neoliberalism.” Antipode 41.S1 (2009): 166-84.Findlay-King, Lindsay, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen. “Localism and the Big Society: The Asset Transfer of Leisure Centres and Libraries—Fighting Closures or Empowering Communities.” Leisure Studies (2017): 1-13.Friedersdorf, Conor. “The Danger of Being Neighborly without a Permit.” The Atlantic 20 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/little-free-library-crackdown/385531/>.Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2004.“Good Luck Spencer.” Spencer’s Little Free Library Facebook Page 25 Jun. 2014. 26 Mar. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Hardenbrook, Joe. “A Little Rant on Little Free Libraries (AKA Probably an Unpopular Post).” Mr. Library Dude (9 Apr. 2014). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://mrlibrarydude.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/a-little-rant-on-little-free-libraries-aka-probably-an-unpopular-post/>.Harper, Deb. “Minutes.” The Leawood City Council 7 Jul. 2014. <http://www.leawood.org/pdf/cc/min/07-07-14.pdf>. Heady, Chris. “City Wants Church to Move Little Library.” Lincoln Journal Star 9 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://journalstar.com/news/local/city-wants-church-to-move-little-library/article_7753901a-42cd-5b52-9674-fc54a4d51f47.html>. Herrmann, Gretchen M. “Garage Sales Make Good Neighbors: Building Community through Neighborhood Sales.” Human Organization 62.2 (2006): 181-191.Kellogg, Carolyn. “Officials Threaten to Destroy a Little Free Library in Texas.” Los Angeles Times (1 Oct. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-library-texas-20150930-story.html>.LaCasse, Alexander. “Why Are Some Cities Cracking Down on Little Free Libraries.” Christian Science Monitor (5 Feb. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0205/Why-are-some-cities-cracking-down-on-little-free-libraries>.Landman, Ruth H. Creating the Community in the City: Cooperatives and Community Gardens in Washington, DC Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993. Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/>.Lopez, Steve. “Actor’s Curbside Libraries Is a Smash—for Most People.” LA Times 3 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0204-lopez-library-20150204-column.html>.Moore, Rowan. Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture. New York: Harper Design, 2013.Moss, Laura. “City Zoning Laws Target Little Free Libraries.” Mother Nature Network 25 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/city-zoning-laws-target-little-free-libraries>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Literacy and Numeracy Scale Scores of 25- to 65-Year Olds, by Sex, Age Group, Highest Level of Educational Attainment, and Country of Other Education System: 2012, table 604.10. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_604.10.asp?current=yes>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scores of Adults: 1992 and 2003. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp>.Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1999.“Our History.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourhistory/>.Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.Rumage, Jeff. “Little Free Libraries Now Allowed in Whitefish Bay.” Whitefish Bay Patch (8 May 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://patch.com/wisconsin/whitefishbay/little-free-libraries-now-allowed-in-whitefish-bay>.Sanburn, Josh. “What Do Kansas and Nebraska Have against Small Libraries?” Time 10 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://time.com/2970649/tiny-libraries-violating-city-ordinances/>.Schaub, Michael. “Little Free Libraries on the Wrong Side of the Law.” LA Times 4 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-libraries-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-20150204-story.html>.Shumaker, David. “Public Libraries, Little Free Libraries, and Embedded Librarians.” The Embedded Librarian (28 April 2014) 26 Mar. 2017 <https://embeddedlibrarian.com/2014/04/28/public-libraries-little-free-libraries-and-embedded-librarians/>.Siegel, Julie. “An Ordinance to Amend Section 16.13 of the Municipal Code with Regard to Exempt Certain Little Free Libraries from Front Yard Setback Requirements.” Village of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin (5 Aug. 2013).Skogan, Wesley G. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Solomon, Dan. “Dallas Is Regulating ‘Little Free Libraries’ for Some Reason.” Texas Monthly (14 Sept. 2016). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/dallas-regulating-little-free-libraries-reason/>.“Spencer’s Little Free Library.” Facebook 15 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Steward, M. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2017.Stingl, Jim. “Village Slaps Endnote on Little Libraries.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 11 Nov. 2012: 1B, 7B.Streitfeld, David. “Anger as a Private Company Takes over Libraries.” The New York Times (26 Sept. 2010). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/27libraries.html>.Svehla, Louise. “Little Free Libraries—The Possibilities Are Endless.” Public Libraries Online (8 Mar. 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2013/03/little-free-libraries-the-possibilities-are-endless/>.Tapper, Jake. “Boy Fights Council to Save His Library.” CNN 4 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/04/boy-fights-to-save-his-library/>.Topil, Greg. “Little Free Libraries in Lincoln.” City of Lincoln, Nebraska (n.d.). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://lincoln.ne.gov/City/pworks/engine/row/little-library.htm>.