The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

Indeed, it is. The pen here is synonymous to words penned down on documents or scripts. It refers to the scribe, the journalist, the writer. The sword is simply its antonym. A sword is meant to be swung to maim. Strength or force is its prerequisite. Swords are borne by warriors, fighters, soldiers. Mightier denotes that, in terms of utilitarianism, the scribe hands the warrior's ass to him.

Since time immemorial, there have been many symbolic legends of war and valiant slayers of evil. King Arthur and his fabled sword, Excalibur, personify the majestic spirit of conquest and battle. Many a fairy tale undertakes the same romantic setting of saving damsels in distress and battling mythical creatures.

In contrast to myths, reality is precarious. Heroes in war can become villains in peacetime. Right and wrong are, therefore, interchangeable. If journalists assert their stories and the public discounts them as the truth, what happens if they are wrong? Adjudication and apologies are in order. That is why if we choose the sword, a permanent outcome nearly guarantees belated regret.

It was not force that gave Abraham Lincoln a country; it was his eloquence and knowledge that paved his legacy. His quotes are still some of the best references today. An unparalleled samurai
, Miyamoto Musashi, knew his strength was not omnipotent, nor was his life. It was his brush and mind he indulged on his deathbed, Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist of words. He single-handedly prevented a civil clash and subdued the British colonial rule by passive resistance, ending their sovereignty over India. Like Abraham, his convictions, too, live on.

Not everything can be solved with words. Nevertheless, the truth is: Unlike a sword that has vanquished lives, the pen is perpetual. The sword closes the future while the pen opens it. Dead men don’t traverse time, but words and paper have a timeless quality.

In fact, the phrase – “The pen is mightier than the sword” – originated from Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s written play, Richelieu. He insinuated that words could save nations.

Now, the pen has assumed other forms. Countries that have traditionally relied on force have

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on diplomacy 

recognised the pen as a distinguished tool for survival. After years of hostility, the two Koreas are conducting joint economic efforts and diplomatic visits. Myanmar, impregnated with democratic ideals, has abolished its military regime. Iran has attributed its successes to public diplomacy. The United Nations has proclaimed that diplomacy can avert conflicts and save lives, as well as billions of dollars. Mr Bulwer-Lytton’s artistic proses were not far off the mark.

Broadcasts and newspapers are classic examples that solicit people’s views and awareness. In this age of digital technology and interactivity, news spreads fast. The pen has mutated into a veritable offence and defence mechanism, layered with agenda, euphemism and mass influence. It can be considered the sword of our time, when what matters is not your kills, but your profits. 

The consequences stemmed from large business news organisations, like Bloomberg, are colossal with a stroke of the pen or a push of the keyboard. Opposition and propaganda are bred through captions and subtle allusions in reports. Mentalities are subconsciously framed by the scopes of issues on news outlets.

Since we can revoke what we say, not what we slay, and words can both make peace and devise wars; pens are obviously the mightier choice for inciting opinions and events, and passing judgment. It is always better to unite and amass, than invade and conquer.

As people pledge allegiance to intelligence instead of strength, the war hero is useless. Real words are innate, timely, and immortal, inspired from life’s frontiers. Without language, there exists no meaning and the sword is but a blade. Without a sword, life still goes on.