that is less reliable than any full sign language.
However, that standard, and a pretty good level of communication, is achieved far more quickly and easily than it ever could be between people who speak different
Imagery, in signs or in symbols, isn’t suitable for communication on its own. It must be interpreted, its meaning guessed at. But in a situation where the guesses can be constrained, where two people can use context and feedback from each other to put a limit on the possible interpretations, it is extremely useful. The teachers at the OCCC understood this, and what they did with the children was set up just such a situation. When a child wanted to say “dream” but did not have a symbol for it on her board, she pointed to “sleep + think.” Her teacher guessed from the context that she meant “dream,” and the child confirmed that guess. If a child tried a combination and the teacher guessed wrong, the teacher could take another guess, or the child could try a different approach. Communication had always been a guessing game for these children, but before Blissymbols they had no way to constrain the guesses. If a child had needs-based pictures to point to, he might have tried to say “dream” by pointing to a picture of a bed. Then the adult would ask, “Do you want to go to bed? Do you want to get your pillow? Is there a problem in your bedroom?” and the child would have no power to direct the line of questioning. When the children learned Blissymbols, and a method for representing abstract concepts through combination, they finally had a way to actively put limits on interpretation.
And this changed their lives tremendously. On my Toronto trip, I asked another of Shirley’s former students how he used to communicate before he learned Blissymbolics. He typed out a one-word answer on his computer: “Kick.”
Though Blissymbols was a huge improvement over what was available to the children before, it was still not good enough. The children could communicate about almost anything with their teachers, parents, and others who were familiar with the special mechanics of negotiated agreement that Blissymbols required, but they couldn’t do this with just anyone. They had access to communication, but not full access. They had a very useful tool, but not a language.
So the OCCC staff modified and adapted Bliss’s system in order to make it serve as a bridge to English. They added the alphabet to the symbol boards, so the kids, before they had fully learned to spell, could constrain a symbol by pointing to the first letter of the word they intended. Teachers using the symbols in other countries made adjustments in accordance with the requirements of their spoken languages: In Hungary, they changed the order of the symbols to reflect Hungarian word order and added symbols for grammatical markers as needed. In Israel, they wrote the symbols from right to left. All of these adjustments infuriated Bliss, because he thought he had invented a universal language.
After the OCCC administration told Bliss he was not welcome anymore, his level of interference increased tenfold, and he started threatening lawsuits. Twice, legal agreements were reached where he granted the center rights to use his symbols (under the terms of one agreement, the center was required to mark all symbols in its publications that he had not personally approved with a 
), but he always found an excuse to break the agreements and begin fresh attacks on its progress.
He sent an open letter to all institutions in Europe that worked with disabled children in order to “voice my flaming protest against the machinations and perversions of my work by an irresponsible and irrational woman, Mrs. Shirley McNaughton.” He wrote a pamphlet called “My Terror of Toronto” and sent it to the government, the press, and anyone else he thought would listen. McNaughton started getting random “who do you think you are?” letters from strangers. At the same time, Bliss wrote her letters telling her how much he loved her and hoped they could “go on to a greater glory together.” After he viewed the
HAVE SEEN FILM EXTREME CLOSEUP OF YOU DEADLY TO HOLLYWOOD BEAUTIES BUT YOU CAME OUT MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN EVER HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WHAT AGAIN YES AGAIN LOVE TO BOB KEVIN DAVID
Bliss was desperate for respect, but he was more desperate for love. He was genuinely shocked and hurt when people got angry at him, or cut him out of their lives, despite the fact that it was his own irrational behavior that drove them away. He saw himself as a charmer, an entertainer, a selfless lover of humanity. In his oftrepeated and unlikely account of his release from Buchenwald, he had melted the hearts of his Nazi prison guards with his mandolin playing. It was crucial to his view of himself that he believe in the magical power of his generous spirit.
So, often, when he sensed he had gone too far, he made an effort to win back love. But it never lasted very long. Sometimes the very next day after an apology, a flattery, a plea for pity and understanding, he would find himself fueled by a fresh wave of indignant anger, and the tirades would start up again. He couldn’t help himself.
This was his holiday greeting the next year:
A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU, PEACE ON EARTH AND GOOD WILL TO ALL MEN. Yes, Good Will to all Men, but not to a woman, Mrs. McNaughton. She’s trying to kill me, make me drop dead so she can take over, but im not going to. Are you protecting your fair maiden, well she’s not fair. She has black hair and a black mind.
At one point, Shirley almost resigned, but found she couldn’t leave her students behind. Instead, she accepted dealing with Bliss as another part of her job. He still came back every spring, and she still greeted him warmly. Despite everything that had happened, she maintained respect and admiration for him, and really did want to please him. Her equanimity in the face of it all resulted in a workable but absurd situation, as captured in one of her letters to Bliss.
Dear Charles:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your July 19th letter, “Three Devastating Proofs That Shirley McNaughton Is Catastrophically Ignorant of My Logical Symbol System and the Catastrophic Results of Her Ignorance,” and your more recent letter of July 21st. Prior to your second letter I discussed with [the administration] your request for $5,000. Please direct all future correspondence relating to your expenses to them.
Thank you for your speedy response to our cable regarding the thickness of the pointer, and for your July 21st letter expressing your desire to work on symbols in September.
We look forward to your involvement in developing more symbols in the fall.
Sincerely,
Shirley
Eventually, the workable could no longer coexist with the absurd. Bliss brought the lawyers back, and the center, desperate to make him go away, settled with him. In 1982, the OCCC got an exclusive, noncancelable, and perpetual license to use Blissymbolics, and he got $160,000. Easter Seals, the charitable foundation under whose auspices the program was now working, paid the settlement.
That’s right. There’s no other way to put it: Bliss, self-proclaimed savior of humanity, stole $160,000 from crippled children.
I found out about the details of the settlement when I met with Shirley in the sleepy Ontario town of Guelph, where she lives with her husband in a tidy retirement village. There are Blissymbols throughout their town house, on a mirror over the piano, on needlepoint cushions in the guest room. The kitchen back-splash is formed by a chain of painted tiles that say, in Blissymbols, “People helping people helping people helping people.”
When she told me how much Bliss got in the settlement, I couldn’t contain myself. I told her how selfish,
