On pens and power

Everyone knows that "the pen is mightier than the sword." This is, however, not true...or at least not the whole truth.

The difference between the sword and the pen is not quantitative (the amount of power of each); it is qualitative (the type of power). Pens may grant us power, but that is not what they're about. "The pen is mightier than the sword" implies that the only advantage that pens give us is increased strength, when really, the pen (and writing) gives us so much more. I remember childhood discussions about this phrase, in which we concluded that the greater strength of the pen was contained within judicial death sentences (and whatever a "license to kill" might look like), but that is not the strength of the pen. A more sophisticated view of the greater strength of the pen highlights the pen's utility in written arguments; changing minds, crushing opponents. And this, too, is not quite right.

The "strength" of the pen is not its value as a combative weapon -- to kill, or to crush your opponents in a debate. While these qualities certainly lie, latent, within the Bic ballpoint on your desk, these are not the greatest features that it has. The pen, to me, is about expression -- poetry, describing a sunset, emotion. Novels, fiction and non-fic, big ideas. These things are on an entirely different axis than the "might" of arms, and considering only the relative strength or weakness of various tools available to us can blind us, tragically, to the greater number of better uses for the humble pen.

I think that this misconception about pens and power is related to society's approach to strength in general. I think we all, individually and as a society, focus far too much on strength. But this wider discussion is, perhaps, a topic for another day.