In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scientific and technological developments made surgery safer, more reliable, and, with the corresponding increase in experimentation permitted, more exploratory and successful than ever before. The age of the heroic surgeon, however, obscured procedures that relied on the patient's cooperation for a final, positive outcome. This essay focuses on the debates surrounding cleft palate surgery in Britain, Europe, and North America between about 1800 and 1930, where the constancy of failure dogged the surgeon, even with improved operative surroundings. Although an anatomical correction could eventually be secured by surgery, without the patient's participation in learning "normal" speech, the ultimate result was unsuccessful. Patient responsibility and self-control became, therefore, the key to success. By exploring what this meant for patients, their families, and surgeons, a new way of thinking about surgical outcomes, even during a period of increasing confidence in surgery, can be posited.B y the late 1920s, "of all the branches of surgery," claimed British surgeon W. E. M. Wardill, "that dealing with cleft palate is one of the most friendless." He based this image of the lonely surgical practitioner on two fundamental concerns. First, without lengthy practice in the field, surgical skill could not be honed nor successful outcomes guaranteed; second, the final results were so poor as far as patient speech was concerned that the dispirited surgeon required "an overdose of optimism in order to enable him to carry on." 1 The difficulties with cleft palate surgery arose, therefore, because of the dual criteria that both surgeons and patients agreed constituted "success": an anatomical fix was necessary, but the development of normal speech had to follow. This latter requirement could take years or not happen at all. It is hardly surprising that the