Does a child’s happiness and moral development change negatively after reading graphic novels, or does it inspire them? This question has been intensely explored by two articles published by the Wall Street Journal, “Darkness Too Visible” by Meghan Cox Gurden and “Why the Best Kids Books are Written in Blood” by Sherman Alexie. Critic Meghan Gurden and author Sherman Alexie battle for the winning opinion on if dark and violent themes in young adult books can be dangerous to a child’s development and health. Meghan Gurden and Sherman Alexie’s articles may be talking about the same subject, young adult literature, but their perspective, connotations, purpose, and audience are completely different. Gurden and Alexie’s perspective on the topic of graphic YA novels are unalike; Gurden believes these books are “...grotesque...”(Gurden par. 18), while Alexie promotes and writes dark themes in children’s books that Gurden harshly criticizes. Gurden describes her view by criticising other authors: “By contrast, the latest novel by ‘this generation’s Judy Blume,’ otherwise known as Lauren Myrcle…the author [Lauren Myrcle] makes free with language that can’t be reprinted in a newspaper” (Gurden par. 18). Gurden is saying how inappropriate this author can be and mentions several other authors in her article including Alexie. In contrast, Alexie promotes graphic novels to young adults by saying “...and now I write books for teenagers because I vividly remember what it felt like to be a teen facing everyday and epic dangers”(Alexie par. 29) He is upset about Gurden’s article and is baffled that she would even suggest dark themes could harm children; Does Ms. Gurden honestly believe that a sexually explicit YA novel might somehow traumatize a teen mother? Does she believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will somehow shock a teenager whose life has been damaged by murder and rape? Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell? (Alexie par. 10) Although they both use very broad generalizations in both articles, Gurden and Alexie talk as if every single child who goes through hardships is not bothered by violent novels (Alexie par. 10) or that everyone believes that Lauren Myrcle is ‘this generation’s Judy Blume’ (Gurden par. 18). Gurden and Alexie’s views are clearly different in their own ways. Connotations evoke emotion through words; Gurden uses connotations to make the subject seem gorey and make the reader disgusted about this topic. She even makes it sound as though she is mocking and speaks down on the authors mentioned in her article. Some examples are: “...thwarted and disheartened...” (Gurden par.1), “...lurid and dramatic...” (Gurden par. 2), “...profanity...” (Gurden par. 4), “...aesthetic coarseness...” (Gurden par. 25). With these words she gives the illusion that her opinion is correct, it is a persuasion method she uses to show her audience how grotesque graphic YA novels really are. Gurden and Alexie have different uses for connotations in their articles. Alexie uses connotations to relate to the reader and the kids that have had dark experiences like he has had, he explains, “They wanted to protect me from sex when I had already been raped.”(Alexie par. 12), “...vividly remember...” (Alexie par. 29), “...Control and diminish him...”(Alexie par. 25). With this, Alexie not only uses his wide vocabulary to oppose Gurden’s article but to show how incorrect her opinion is to him. Purpose and intended audience is a high contrast topic between Gurden and Alexie. Gurden is persuading responsible, educated, 40-50 year old parents that these new-age books should be shunned and are not useful, saying that they are harmful to her audience’s child; “It has to do with a child’s happiness, moral development and tenderness of heart.” (Gurden par. 6) Gurden goes on to say, “Foul language is widely regarded among librarians, reviewers and booksellers as perfectly OK,” (Gurden par. 21) Gurden is explaining how librarians, reviewers, etc. let the foul language and graphicness continue and that it is the author’s writing that is at fault here. Alexie’s purpose is to explain how he parallels subjects in books to his own life, empathy, relatability, the reason he writes is for these kids struggling so they can relate and will not feel so alone.“...and now I write books for teenagers because I vividly remember…” (Alexie par. 29). He also writes this article to show how Gurden is being conceited about this topic; “I have yet to receive a letter from a child somehow debilitated by the domestic violence,drug abuse, racism,poverty,sexuality and murder contained in my book.” (Alexie par. 7). With this quote, Alexie describes his audience, young adults. He explains throughout his article his purpose, how wrong Gurden is and how his books make children feel more comforted. Sherman Alexie and Meghan Gurden’s perspective, connotations, purpose and audience have been different from the start. Do graphic novels change a child’s happiness and moral development? Alexie and Gurden fight to the death in these two articles on whether or not these dark themed novels have negative or positive impact on our children and their future.