YA Analysis – Emilie Morscheck

YA Analysis: Aurora Burning (SPOILERS)

This post is a part of a series for my blog where I break down YA novels. It’s not a review, but rather an analysis of what I liked and disliked within a YA context. This post’s analysis is about Aurora Burning by Amie Kaufman and Jay Kristoff.

Warning! Spoilers ahead for Aurora Rising/Aurora Burning!

What I liked:

Multiple perspectives
- Why it worked: Each POV character has a unique voice and way of viewing the world. In this instalment of the series, character backstories are expanded to bring more life to them. By focusing in on certain characters in each book, each POV is afforded a chance to be shown in depth. A takeaway here is don’t cram everything about every character into the first series of a book. We need enough to understand them in the first book, but use subsequent instalments to give each character the space they deserve.
Fast-paced plot
- Why it worked: Keeps you moving through the story and connected to the character’s emotions. The plot also does give scenes space to breathe when needed. Scenes flow seamlessly into each other to build tension.
Worldbuilding
- Why it worked: Book two does a great job of expanding on book one without being overwhelming. Another good example of slowly adding detail through a series to create rich worldbuilding. It doesn’t (and shouldn’t) all happen in book one.

What I disliked:

Cliff-hanger ending
- Why it didn’t work: For me, this made the book struggle to work as a standalone. A cliff-hanger ending might be used to keep readers interested in the next book, however, in the case of this series, the character development is enough to keep the reader interested. Coming into book three will mean there are lots of unresolved emotions and back-tracking required to remind the reader of where the plot is at. A cliff-hanger can also work if there is resolution provided to at least some parts of the plot, but none were offered here.
The romantic conflict
- Why it didn’t work: It’s a trope in romance to have the couple fall out over some lie/perceived betrayal. In Aurora Burning, the main couple effectively spends six months together before a huge secret is revealed. This revelation, of course, causes the partner to turn against her lover. In the case of this narrative, after everything the couple has been through in book one and two, it doesn’t make sense that this act would cause a separation – perhaps a small break given the seriousness of the lie. But the characters know each other, they haven’t lied about their fundamental selves. In the end, it felt very contrived to act as a plot device to get character B into a new location for the finale.

Writing Tips

YA Analysis: Seafire

What I liked:

Female-led cast
- Why it worked: There are women of all kinds of ability in the main cast showing a diverse range of ‘strong’ female characters. Strength is represented in many ways and provides some great examples for building female characters. Seafire also provides stellar examples on female-female friendships and the power of sisterhood.
Fast-paced plot
- Why it worked: Pulled me through the story. There was a strong sense of momentum without being overpowering or overwhelming. Chapters are short and sharp with their own conflicts. A few slower chapters balance the pacing and provide reflective moments.
Setting details
- Why it worked: In a story mostly set at sea, Seafire does a great job at adding texture to the ocean environment. The descriptions rarely feel repetitive and each part of the sea has its own flavour.

What I disliked:

Worldbuilding
- Why it didn’t work: The world feels hollow. Every piece of information was to further the plot or enhance a conflict. While this is normally good, there was foreshadowing. This leaves the reader knowing that the next location is there to further the plot, rather than being a part of a fleshed-out world. Locations exist in silos. Could have used a little more detail.
Character Histories
- Why it didn’t work: For the same reason as the world-building, the character histories and motivations felt hollow. It was hard to get a sense that any of the characters existed before the plot of the book begins. Motivations are one-note and tied into defeating the villain. I think the book starts too late and could have given a bit more space to understanding the journey the character has been through.
Action scenes
- Why it didn’t work: The action scenes, while fun, lacked a certain punch. Reactions often aren’t realistic and serious injuries are shrugged off. The stakes never really feel that high as the characters move on quickly from the pain. There are minor character deaths, but these feel underused, and mainly service the main plot, rather than developing an emotional response.

Writing Tips

YA Analysis: Six of Crows

This post is the first in a series for my blog where I break down YA novels. It’s not a review, but rather an analysis of what I liked and disliked within a YA context. This post’s analysis is about Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo.

What I liked:

Multiple perspectives
- Why it worked: The multiple perspectives were all unique and gave multiple viewpoints into a complex world. Each character had a strong motivation for why they were a part of the story.
Fast-paced plot
- Why it worked: For a surprisingly large book (130,000+ words?) the plot did not slow down. There was lots of action the whole way through with enough moments of reflection to not exhaust the reader. A great example of pacing for YA.
Worldbuilding
- Why it worked: The Grishaverse is a diverse world with lots to explore. There are cultures, races and class systems that are unique. The strength of this book is that there are no info dumps to explain these aspects of the world. The important aspects are shown or briefly explained. The characters feel like they’re moving through a real world.

What I disliked:

The first two chapters
- Why it didn’t work: There is a lot of information thrown in here (not an info dump) with lots of characters, some who are inconsequential to the rest of the plot. Perhaps the second chapter would be an exciting scene in a film or show but I was left confused and overwhelmed.
The withholding of character backstory
- Kaz, the leader of the heist team, doesn’t have his key character backstory revealed until over halfway through the book. I would have like to have seen it sooner to build empathy for his character and explain his motivations upfront.