Scan barcode
A review by lizshayne
Hana Khan Carries On by Uzma Jalaluddin
emotional
funny
hopeful
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Well, this was adorable. Exactly what it says on the tin.
So one of the interesting things about Romance, as a genre, is the way it has a number of conventions that are not strictly part of the genre, but which constitute a violation of the contract between reader and author if not followed. Mystery is the only other genre I can think of that works this way. (There is no rule, for example, that if a magic system is introduced, it must be explained.) And, interestingly, both of those genres are caught up in questions of morality.
One of the rules of the romance novel is that you don’t succeed by violating your principles, you succeed by standing up for your principles and then you will be gifted a new opportunity by doing so.
Which means that every romance novel is also a moral argument that, at least to some degree, reflects the morality of the author and presumed audience. (Am I implicitly arguing that the continued success of tall, dark and assault-y is due, in part, because a subset of society finds that behavior excusable and morally acceptable under certain circumstances…apparently. Is that extremely beyond the scope of this book, which has no such character in it? Yep.)
So the moral arguments in this book about what is owed and what is acceptable “selling out” are super interesting and, especially coming off of listening to RENT over the weekend, different (but also familiar) than this musical that came out 20 years ago. Because it’s precisely a story about where the right to make money ends, comparing it to its inciting narrative of “You’ve Got Mail” raises questions of the role in generation shift and the immigrant experience in determining how we understand what we owe.
So one of the interesting things about Romance, as a genre, is the way it has a number of conventions that are not strictly part of the genre, but which constitute a violation of the contract between reader and author if not followed. Mystery is the only other genre I can think of that works this way. (There is no rule, for example, that if a magic system is introduced, it must be explained.) And, interestingly, both of those genres are caught up in questions of morality.
One of the rules of the romance novel is that you don’t succeed by violating your principles, you succeed by standing up for your principles and then you will be gifted a new opportunity by doing so.
Which means that every romance novel is also a moral argument that, at least to some degree, reflects the morality of the author and presumed audience. (Am I implicitly arguing that the continued success of tall, dark and assault-y is due, in part, because a subset of society finds that behavior excusable and morally acceptable under certain circumstances…apparently. Is that extremely beyond the scope of this book, which has no such character in it? Yep.)
So the moral arguments in this book about what is owed and what is acceptable “selling out” are super interesting and, especially coming off of listening to RENT over the weekend, different (but also familiar) than this musical that came out 20 years ago. Because it’s precisely a story about where the right to make money ends, comparing it to its inciting narrative of “You’ve Got Mail” raises questions of the role in generation shift and the immigrant experience in determining how we understand what we owe.