I wanted to start this piece with the definition of hagiography but doing so I believe will be me assuming this piece is for the consumption of unscholarly readers which it's not.

Also because it has two meanings both of which featured prominently in the book; while my writing will seek to address one - the book address the other. Before I journey further I admit not to have read the book in full and I might rescind the content of this piece when I do (which I doubt) but gauging by the excerpts, reviews and citations associated with the book I think I have no reason to rescind.

There is something inexact about this book even without a flip of its pages. Something imprecise that occupies each page - a flaw of expressive writing, time and the resulting attribution bias. Time is a factor in whatever happened and a crucial part of the decision to lay them straight. The reason why I find fault in a book where my only source for condemnations are excerpts and reviews is time.

Memoir as a literary rendition of a particular event(s) must have the objectivity and fairness of non-fictions. Devoid of self-gratification and overly resort to bias. It must seek to not just be a monologue of one's emotions or sentiments. It must adhere to the principle of fairness and withstand scrutiny or rebuttal. It must not just seek to attract the sympathy of friends but through objectivity seek repentance and forgiveness. Typical of memoirs, we are often lured to write our truths - unknowingly ignoring the truth, sinking into the abyss of partiality. It must not just dwell on facts but all facts.

I believe the timing for this memoir is hurried because constructively it will be but a parade of lettered emotions. The whole incident is fresh hurrying to document it in a book will in my own opinion satisfy just the benefits of expressive writings (Dr James W. Pennebaker, currently, chair of the psychology department at the University of Texas, Austin, has made tremendous research about expressive writing and its benefits you can check it out).

Allowing the writer the atmosphere to express herself without inhibition - freely expressing innermost pain of outright self-serving bias. Because it is expressive, it is muscled with raw emotions tightly knitted sentiments. It makes it very hard to categorise it as an opinion rather than stated facts.

The emotions, pains and sentiments in expressive writings sometimes cloud the facts and take the writer on a self-serving chase. It not only take the writer on such chase but conclusively makes their writing a pile of self-serving bias. The emotions hereby make the piece or in this case, the book prejudiced in view and lopsided in the context.

What I can deduce from the available materials I have scoped is a genuine intent to contribute to the emerging feminism discourse using her story which is condemnable. Also is the portrait of a hard-working woman pregnant with pain and willing to share. But the timing of the book can really sacrifice objectivity. It (could) robs the narrative of fairness and objectivity - and the writer also ample time of critical and logical retrospect devoid of emotions or sentiments.

It makes of the writer a saint in the events and makes everyone a devil or accomplice. Thereby, "becoming hagiography"