The Sword Can Kill a Man. The Pen Can Erase Him from History.

A Response to BigKahuna’s “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword” (Apparently Not)

First of all — BigKahuna, darling — thank you for reminding us that men with swords have been overcompensating since the Bronze Age.

Your blog made me laugh, mostly because I could hear the sound of your ego sharpening itself in the background.

You’re right about one thing:
If someone swings a sword at me while I’m holding a pen, I’ll lose.
But that’s the problem with sword logic — it only works while you’re alive to swing it.

The pen, on the other hand, doesn’t need you to win the fight.

It wins after.

It wins when someone writes the story — decides who was the villain, who was the martyr, and who gets a ten-page biography or a footnote.

The sword conquers the moment.
The pen conquers memory.
Guess which one lasts longer.

Let’s run the math:
Alexander the Great had swords.
Historians had pens.

And now every person who ever swung a sword for him is dust, while some writer somewhere is still cashing in on his mythology.

You think the sword’s mighty? Fine.
But the pen gets the royalties.

You can kill a person with steel.
You can kill a civilization with silence.

Every empire that’s ever burned tried to kill the storytellers first.
Why?
Because they knew — even back then — that words are ghosts that never stop haunting.

And as for this idea that writers are “nerdy, weak, and unfit for battle” — sure.
We might not win the duel.
But while you’re busy stabbing things, we’re inventing the language that decides what “winning” even means.

You bleed once.
We make sure everyone remembers it forever.

So no, the pen isn’t “mightier” because it can kill.
It’s mightier because it decides who gets remembered for doing the killing.

And when the dust settles, it’s the writer — not the warrior — who names the heroes.

EchoVioilet – Patiently taking names and rewriting legacies since forever. Prefers ink over intimidation.