A crisis . . . a desperate cry for help?

     "What you hope for
Is that at some point of the pointless journey
The King assassin Sleep will draw a bead
And blow your brains out"
   -- "Walking to Sleep" Richard Wilbur

How important is the background, all those little details that flesh out the character and the world they live in?
Its important, right? It is and it isn't.

Let me get straight to the point, before I wander off too much. The reason I'm almost in panic mode, I think there is a major problem with Ange being a single child.

I know the most important really is character. If you fall in love with the character then you'll follow them through 200 + pages, you worry about  them and hope for them. The world they live in doesn't matter as much, nor does the mystery they have to solve or the social, political setting they come from. In second place comes the story, it has to make sense, a somewhat linear movement from A to B, and have what could be called a beginning, middle and end. And in the end we want to see that "the good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means." (Thank you Oscar Wilde.)

The details help make the story and the characters real, vibrant, alive. The details have a smaller role to play. If someone lacks depth, or if inconsistencies drag the story down, then it makes everyone look bad. It's hard to read a book with errors. The background has to be there, in the background, working seamlessly. From the Writer's Retreat I took last October, the editor from New York, Anica Ricci (a beautiful woman, who was intimidating and awe inspiring) said authors should know all the inane background of a character and world, but that doesn't mean it should be in the story.

In the Goosey Ange is an only child, I did this for a reason. The source material doesn't mention any siblings. It only says "ONCE upon a time an old queen, whose husband had been dead for many years, had a beautiful daughter. When she grew up she was betrothed to a prince who lived a great way off." (Andrew Lang's version) I wanted there to be a small knit family, a mother and wife who still felt the loss of her husband, and who then must give up her only daughter. Desperate times. Desperate measures. I wanted Ange to feel alone, abandoned when she ends up as a goose girl. I like that Mirth has brothers, who cause so much trouble, and Ange doesn't.

I've decided to research medieval politics, specifically royal alliances, to try to understand them better. So far I haven't had much luck on-line. I did make one fascinating discover about Saint Hedwig, patron saint of Queens. Maybe you know about her, that she was the Polish King Jadwiga. (Hedwig is the German pronunciation.) She became King, not Queen, of Poland at the age of 11. (So young) She broke off her betrothal to an Austrian Prince and eventually married a Prince from the neighboring kingdom of Lithuania, after he converted to Christianity. Their marriage united the kingdoms and made Poland all the stronger. (Here's the wiki entry.)

I'm not exactly certain where to continue my research, should I real Machiavelli's The Prince? Do you think that would help?

The problem is, if Ange is an only child, wouldn't she be the heir to the kingdom?

There could be a Winding law that only men can inherit the throne. And the only reason Ange's mother is Queen is she married a Prince, who unfortunately died. And now is she a widow, with a young daughter, and must rule her kingdom on her own. So, who is currently the heir?

Uh oh. It's not Ange, because she must go to Geyona, that's what the story is about.
I'm afraid if I add a new character it will change the dynamics too much. But do I have any other choice? I don't want to have an older brother or sister. How about a distant cousin from the kingdom of Catha? A dull, overfed Prince whose only interests are trade and farming, someone eager to secure the kingdom's (and his own) future by marrying off his cousin Ange to form an alliance with a distant kingdom.

Of course, the simplest solution is to have an older brother. There done with. A boring older brother of little consequence, who only has to appear for three letters, maybe four. Someone easily swindled, because he is simple minded, not stupid, but not the sharpest tack in the toolbox. Someone who is not the most politically savvy, but solid and steady. Now what should I call him?