Hi Moriah,
Per your request, I’ve read this story all the way through from the beginning.
Overall, I’m feeling a little ambivalent. It’s easy to read, your prose is fairly clean and the story is clear (edit: and I forgot to mention I enjoyed the world-building and historical detail). But the characterisation seems flat to me, the dialogue is a bit clunky, and the plot consistently shies away from real conflict. At the moment, I wouldn’t turn the page. You have the bones of a good story here -- it just needs more work.
Characterisation and girl powerI think my key problem with this story is the characterisation. Characters tend to have names, but no personalities. The only character with at least two dimensions is Jo -- everyone else is just a name and maybe one quality. Pegg is loyal. William is interested in Jo. Er ... that’s it. Nobody seems to have any uniqueness, any tricks or traits, anything to make them stand out. So in 12,000 words, that’s only one character with any personality.
And Jo has a few problems. Mainly, I feel like she’s a girl-power cliche: the girl who’s just as good as any man (copyright Tamora Pierce). She seems to be able to do anything she puts her mind to, and do it better than anyone else, even when that doesn’t make any sense. Often I found myself wondering how exactly Jo has the experience and strength and skill to be so wonderful at everything. In her first real fight she kills four men without taking a scratch and saves William in the process. She captains a ship with exactly no experience. Despite being described as “slim” and presumably having pitiful upper-body strength she manages to intimidate a pirate. And on and on. There’s nothing Jo can’t pick up for the first time and be amazing at it.
This girl-power thing is hurting Jo rather than helping her. By making her into a perfect female character who can do everything brilliantly, you’ve made her unrealistic. Tamora Pierce’s girl-power champion Alanna worked as a character because she had weaknesses and flaws she had to work around. Your Jo doesn’t have any.
I also feel like Jo’s physical attractiveness is being substituted for uniqueness as a character. It’s easy to
tell the reader that a character is beautiful -- difficult to
show the reader that a character is compelling and unique. It’s easy to present a character who’s lusted after for her beauty -- difficult to present a character who’s loved for her compelling personality. Don’t use beauty as a crutch here.
I wish that Jo was a more rounded character, one with emotional and physical imperfections, who had to fight and overcome her own weaknesses rather than just automatically being awesome.
RomanceI was surprised in chapter 6 to stumble over the start of a romance between Jo and William. It’s surprising because William has had only a handful of lines and basically no characterisation, and then all of a sudden we’ve jumped into his viewpoint and he’s pining over how attractive Jo is. In nearly 12,000 words, we haven’t been told anything about what William is like as a person. We’re told that he’s attracted to Jo, but what’s he
like? Brave or cowardly? Nice or mean? Bold or cautious? Witty or serious? Does he have any interests, skills or hobbies? I know more about his appearance (blond) than his personality (nothing).
I note that in this chapter 6 scene William is only thinking about Jo’s physical attractiveness, rather than her personality, which also makes me concerned about this romance. Is the reader being intentionally led to think that William is only attracted to Jo for her looks? Does he fall for every attractive woman? Will he dump her for the next one who comes along?
Romances live or die on characterisation. William needs a personality, and he needs reasons to be interested in Jo other than her “voluptuous peach-coloured lips”.
Earning victory through conflictThe second most important problem that I’m seeing is unearned victories. The usual arc of a story is that a protagonist faces conflict, which they then overcome to earn victory. The greater the conflict, the harder the protagonist has to fight, the better the victory they earn. But Jo seems to win a lot without actually having to fight.
At the end of chapter 2, we’re told that Jo has “seven long days to retain her Captaincy, smother any whisper of rebellion, keep forty-eight bars of gold hidden, deal with her Father’s death and remain alive herself”. That’s setting up an awesome conflict! Jo is going to have to fight hard to beat the mutiny, keep the gold and get to port safely. Except the next we hear about this, Jo is already in port. No mutiny. No drama about the gold. No conflict. Nothing. We just skipped right over any difficulty and straight to the victory of getting into port.
All through the story we get moments like this. Jo worries about whether the men will object to her receiving the biggest share of the plunder. This sets up the expectation of conflict -- somebody will object, she’ll have to overcome the problem, and she’ll earn success. Except the conflict peters out, she doesn’t have to lift a finger and she takes the biggest share anyway.
Then there’s a moment when six sailors approach Jo. Normally, this would be the point at which a mutiny is declared, because that ups the conflict and forces the protagonist to fight harder. But instead, the sailors pledge their loyalty to her, even the ones who’d seemed angry about her captaincy. Jo wonders why, and as a reader, I also wonder why. How did Jo earn this? What did she do to deserve it? What conflict did she overcome? Nothing. She didn’t have to fight, so I’m not emotionally invested in her success.
This problem is consistent throughout the story. The conflict is under-sold. Challenges you promise us, like the mutiny, never show up. And the protagonist doesn’t have to fight for what she gets.
That’s a serious problem, because you’re avoiding what could be some truly awesome moments here. Imagine what this story could be like if Jo really did have to fight tooth and nail to keep her ship. If she was facing a mutiny, what would she do? Buy her crew’s loyalty with higher shares of the plunder? Stage a faked major crisis to which she has the only answer? Embark on an ambitious programme of stealing and plundering? Shame them by being braver and tougher than they are? But she never has to do any of this. We miss out on opportunities to learn more about her character through her choices. And she never gets to prove herself both to the other characters and to the reader.
You might find it helpful to read
this blog post about triumphs, because it reflects what I’m seeing here -- moments of success that aren’t earned by the preceding conflict.
More conflict = more awesome.
The openingI think the opening is hampered a little bit by a common problem: throat-clearing. That is, the author spends some time clearing their throat before the plot kicks in. A character who is waiting for something, or sitting and thinking, or just not doing anything is usually a sign of throat-clearing.
In the first 350 words, Jo thinks about her father, imagines the drama that must be happening outside (while the reader is stuck inside the room away from the action), pictures what will happen when her father takes the ship, etc. That’s all. It’s pretty static -- we’re locked inside the protagonist’s head while all the fun goes on somewhere else. I wonder if you might cut this section down a bit and focus on the action: Jo’s escape from the cabin.
Bear in mind that at this stage the reader needs only enough information to follow the opening. You’re working with a setting already familiar to the millions of people who’ve seen Pirates of the Caribbean, and so you can just sketch this situation for us and allow our imaginations to fill in the rest. So ditch everything unnecessary and focus on what’s important. Jo is important. Her father is important. Pegg? Not important right now. The fate awaiting the Spanish crew when they’re taken prisoner? Also not important. (It becomes important when Jo executes them instead of doing what her father would have done.)
Prioritise here.
DialogueI feel like your dialogue strays into Hollywood territory -- cliched lines that I’ve heard in a bunch of generic Hollywood blockbusters. For example:
“Kill them all.”
“You heard her, she’s the Captain now.”
“I’d die before I let any harm come to you.”
Dying parent tells child that they’re proud of them.
New leader tells lieutenant that they must know that the lieutenant is loyal to them. Lieutenant assures them of their loyalty.
Any of these could have come from a dozen films. There’s nothing unique or different about them to tell me that they came from your work specifically. They tell us nothing about the characters speaking them. So the dialogue feels generic, and you’re missing out on a lot of opportunities to present characterisation through dialogue.
I’d also beware of trying to crowbar these lines in where they may not fit. At times I felt like they were quite clunky -- like you’d put them in because they’re the expected lines in these scenes, not because they necessarily fit. For example, would a man dying of having a hole blasted through him speak in complete, grammatical, coherent sentences instead of going into shock? Would a hardened pirate really say “I’d die before I let any harm come to you”? I’m trying to picture these lines actually being said, and I’m coming to the conclusion that they probably wouldn’t be.
Dialogue tagsI wonder if you might benefit from looking at the dialogue tags again. Here are the tags in the opening scene:
“Pegg!” Jo cried out, her voice clogged with emotion, as she knelt beside her dying Father.
“Get the surgeon!” She yelled, fighting the tears.
“The black chest in my quarters,” he whispered hoarsely.
“Aye,” Pegg replied in his Scottish brogue.
“Jo is the Captain of the Dark Goddess.” He tried to cry out so all could hear, but it came out as a mere whisper.
“You’re the Captain!” Josette protested her voice cracking.
“Yes, I only want to make you proud!” Jo cried clasping his limp hand.
“Pegg,” her voice sounded feeble as she searched for her courage, “my Father’s body, take it to his quarters. Have the men assess the damages to the Dark Goddess. Take inventory, we will take as much loot as our cargo will hold.”
“Kill them all,” Jo replied, feeling her compassionate soul being quickly replaced by a dark void.
The dialogue tags in general are quite cluttered. Note how many said-bookisms (words used in place of “said”) you use here: cried, yelled, whispered, replied, protested, etc. There are also a lot of adjectives and describing phrases: voice clogged with emotion, fighting the tears, hoarsely, Scottish brogue, voice cracking, etc. The dialogue tags are becoming quite obtrusive -- particularly as many of them are unnecessary. When someone says “Kill them all”, the reader doesn’t need a whole lot of explanation.
Think about streamlining here. If the dialogue conveys the right emotion, you don’t need a verb and an adverb and then a long phrase to repeat that emotion. You can trust the reader.
ConclusionOkay, I think I’m done. Ultimately, while I found this smooth to read, I think the writing can be polished a little, the dialogue and characterisation need a little and a lot of work respectively, and the story could be much improved by pulling fewer punches with the conflict.
I’ve also attached the story with line edits.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Karsten