Skip to main content

What was the mishap that made Helen Keller lose her facilities of seeing and hearing in The Story of My Life?

Helen got an illness when she was about a year old that left her blind and deaf.


Helen started life as a normal baby.  She walked at one year old.  She was very intelligent.  However, when she was nineteen months old, she contracted a terrible illness.  She recovered, but with a tragic loss of senses.



Then, in the dreary month of February, came the illness which closed my eyes and ears and plunged me into the unconsciousness of a new-born baby. They called it acute congestion of the stomach and brain. The doctor thought I could not live.  (Ch. 1)



The exact illness is not specified, but doctors called it “acute congestion of the stomach and brain.”  They did not expect Helen to live.  She was in great pain.  She recovered, but her intellectual growth was stagnated by the fact that she could no longer hear or see.  It is hard to learn language when you can’t hear.  Helen had not been talking much yet since she wasn’t even two years old.  She had to learn to make do.



My hands felt every object and observed every motion, and in this way I learned to know many things. Soon I felt the need of some communication with others and began to make crude signs. (Ch. 2)



Poor little Helen tried to communicate with her parents, and they did their best to accommodate her needs.  It became clear that something more would have to be done.  This was a case for experts.  Since there was no school for the blind and deaf nearby, her parents sent for a teacher. 


Anne Sullivan was able to teach Helen how to speak, read, and write.  She taught her sign language by spelling into her hand.  Helen’s first word was “water” and she blossomed from there. Her intelligence made her a good student, although she could also be stubborn.  She came to love and rely on Anne.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.