Times vs. Helvetica: The Showdown

For my communications class, we journal once a week (ish) in our "versus journals." It's been Destiny vs. Free Will, Paycheck vs. Creative Fulfillment, etc. This week it was Times vs. Helvetica. This is what I came up with.

       Since the very invention of the typeface, mankind has faced a struggle of priorities. We have wrestled with that age old question, that battle of all battles-- Times? Or Helvetica? The only proper way to settle this debate rests in humanity’s staple problem-solving technique: hand-to-hand combat. Because of its extra appendages and superior agility, Times would undoubtedly conquer Helvetica in a fist fight, settling this epic rivalry once and for all. 

First of all, Helvetica’s lack of serifs gives Times the upper hand. Naturally, we would assume a man with eight limbs would utterly destroy the traditional four-limbed man in a cage match. Times, therefore, gaining many extra appendages in the form of its serifs, would by default annihilate Helvetica. Furthermore, these serifs generally make the Times font much sharper than Helvetica. Just as a lion, with its sharp claws, would in seconds slaughter a man armed only with trimmed fingernails, so Times, with its serif-claws, would destroy Helvetica and its dull edges.

Secondly, Times’ small agility makes it a fore-runner in this battle for the edges. A look at the two typefaces magnified will help to clarify this point. Below I have shown a lowercase letter T in both fonts:

t t

Note first the striking difference in size between Helvetica (left) and Times (right). Though both are pictured in 48 point font, Helvetica towers over its smaller opponent. At first this may seem like an advantage, but let us consider the fact that larger competitors provide a larger target and tend to move more slowly than smaller, more agile competitors. A look at the two fonts in italics will further prove this point:

t  t

Close examiners will note that Times seems to have a higher range of motion than Helvetica, italicizing at a wider angle. Of course, the ability to duck and move more quickly will prove to be a great advantage in a fist fight, sending yet another round to Times’ side of the scoreboard.

In every great battle, two stereotypic warriors emerge: the bumbling slab of muscle aiming to conquer by pure force, and the stealthy trickster who conquers by sharpness both of wit and of sword. While blunt force may seem impressive, it cannot hope to compete with the quick-moving, two-edged powerhouse that is Times. It is no wonder, then, that throughout the ages Times has conveyed our deepest thoughts between the covers of books, leaving the less serious Helvetica for the plodding pace of social networking and the like. After all, if the pen is mightier than the sword, your typeface might as well be just as sharp.