2006-06-11 13:23:44 · 10 answers · asked by Spud 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
V..you lost me at the battlefields..
2006-06-11 16:48:05 · update #1
S of M..you have a point, or a couple of em there
2006-06-11 16:49:20 · update #2
ancient destructions..
2006-06-11 16:50:09 · update #3
Amie..im not convinced
2006-06-11 16:50:47 · update #4
dragonfly..subtler, more provocative?
2006-06-11 16:51:59 · update #5
Assuming literacy, then yes.
2006-06-11 14:10:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think so, yes. A person can scream, battle, and shout, but at the end of the fight all he is is worn-out and probably still didn't make an emotional dent in the other person.
Throughout time, literature has I believe, become one of man's most important tools of rebellion against tyranny and oppression. However extremely old-fashioned the old novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe seems to us now, it cannot be denied that the publishing of it in 1852 helped precipitate the outrage towards slavery which led to the outbreak of the Civil War that of course, eventually led to the emancipation of the American slaves. So in that particular moment of history, a piece of literature had great influence on our society.
That's not the only case--literature has been used to combat everything from sexism to the persecution of the Black Sudanese by the Muslim Arabs. (see "Slave" by Mende Nazer and "Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity - and My Journey to Freedom in America" by Francis Bok)
So yes, I believe that literature can in most cases have more of an effect than duking it out with a person that someone disagrees with. But of course, wars and battles have their own place in world history as well. Books by themselves couldn't have won World War 11, so there's also a place for defense of our country right there on the battlefields.
All in all, I think there's an appropiate time and place for both.
2006-06-11 23:36:20 · answer #2 · answered by V.G. Grace 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the pen is still mightier than the sword, but it is doubtful if it is as powerful as a nuclear weapon. A sword's destruction is local and limited. Nuclear weapons have the potential to end all writing, and then who is going to persuade whom with a pen?
2006-06-12 22:05:11 · answer #3 · answered by haroldpohl2000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For influencing public opinion, the pen wins hands down.
However in a dark alley most will run away faster from a person armed with a sword than from one armed with a pen.
2006-06-11 21:20:53 · answer #4 · answered by sistersofmercy123 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no swords hurt, im missing an arm becouse of swords, and pens can do nothing but make a persons oppinion appear on paper.
2006-06-11 20:31:28 · answer #5 · answered by clownofmercy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course!
People can fight all they want, kill thousands, celebrate their war criminals and yet, at the end the winner is the one with better PROPAGANDA!!!
History is written by the winners, and winner in this case, is the one with more money to spend on world wide advertisement...
2006-06-12 12:08:20 · answer #6 · answered by Jasna 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can do more damage to more lives with one pen than you can with one sword.
2006-06-11 22:07:17 · answer #7 · answered by Amie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the pen creates, the sword destroys the pen's work
2006-06-11 20:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by mintai2003 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course
2006-06-11 20:25:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on how you use both.
2006-06-11 20:29:33 · answer #10 · answered by s.jeong 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋