The Failure of Language

     “The survival of poetry depends on the failure of language.” - Maria Popova, The Marginalian. By this statement, the very existence of poetry must therefore be due to a fault in the language, making poetry a substitute for language itself rather than a representation of it.So shouldn’t poetry be unnecessary where what one is trying to say can be said in standard language? 

     Or maybe poetry is defined not as a substitute to language but an expression of it that is subject to individual interpretation. “Everybody should be quiet/near a little stream and listen” from Ruth Krauss’s Open House for Butterflies could be considered boring ol’ prose if the line break were removed, but including it suddenly “elevates” the statement from the clear, perceptible waters of normal speech into the sophisticated, intangible fog that is poetry. A range of interpretations of Krauss’s statement exist: some people perceive the quote as a lesson about forgiveness, others as a lamentation about the lack of mindfulness and awareness of one’s surroundings, but these varied perceptions would probably still exist if the line break was removed, because people naturally have a tendency to interpret statements differently based on personal experiences and modes of thought. This Merriam-Webster article (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-no-problem) explains that the response “No problem” to an expression of gratitude is completely permissible to younger generations but can be considered rude to older generations, even if it’s said with the same intent as a traditional “You’re welcome”, proving that it is certainly possible for Krauss’s work to be understood the same if it were written normally. So poetry isn’t solely supported by the principle that it can have varied interpretations, because pretty much anything involving a form of expression can be subject to the same outcome.

     Then it must be that poetry is a substitute for language when it fails to deliver, and therefore poetry is unnecessary where language does deliver. But also have to concede that if Popova’s claim holds true, not all poetry is unnecessary because there will always be cases in which language fails. Language will always have a failing point because it was made for the purpose of our communication, and we humans inherently suck at communicating with each other perfectly.