What is the storytelling purpose behind delaying the inevitable outcome of Paul's illness? Did you learn more about Linda in this section? Did it help you understand her part in what happened to Paul? Why?

At the point in the story where you understand that Paul is really sick, the author slows the story down, giving you bits of Linda's growing up life with parents, and her banter with the mechanic boyfriend. What is the storytelling purpose behind delaying the inevitable outcome of Paul's illness? Did you learn more about Linda in this section? Did it help you understand her part in what happened to Paul? Why?

This is connected to the author's reason for using a non-linear narration of her story. When Linda is relating these events she is 37 years old. Still she has trouble accepting what happened to her, and she is still trying to explain to herself how and maybe why it happened as it did. She is not yet really comfortable accepting the reality of what she did or didn't do in connection to Paul's death. Before she can continue relating the events that morning/day of his death, she sidesteps the inevitable and looks at other events or places to blame for her inability to accurately assess what was going on, for her inability to say aloud what she suspected at the time. After so many years, she still carries guilt and has not forgiven herself. As a result, she turns to other events to prolong having to see again and admit what ultimately followed.

The purpose of delaying the outcome is to keep the reader neutral, I think. If the reader goes into the story knowing how and why Paul will die, it would be impossible to read the story without harshly judging everything Patra and Leo do. It also affords the reader a look into what Linda was seeing. All the reader know is that Paul will die young. Even that is more than Linda knows. If the reader is on the lookout for everything that could possibly be seen as a red flag, Linda's role in not seeking help for Leo would likely seem more like a failure to seek help for a child who is being abused rather than simple naivete.

I found the storytelling technique a bit overdone - laborious. There were times when I just wanted to read the last pages & be done with the book.

The story telling method allowed the author to continue the story and the reader to want the story to continue. While I found the relevance of some of the sections questionable, tangential and uninteresting I read on! Guess her method worked for me!
I did learn a little more about Linda. Her isolation, her age both, her limited exposure/experience in the outside world, contributed to her inability to realize that Paul was ill. When she did, it was really too late...all she could do was "go for the Tylenol".

The storytelling method didn't appeal to me. So much of that information could have been learned by the reader in other ways. It almost seemed like a delay tactic for the author, because by this time the reader knew Paul was very sick, we knew his mother couldn't deal with it and would send Paul out of her sight as often as she could. Leo just wanted it done. The reader knew all of these details. To me it seemed the author couldn't deal with the story she opened. Paul was dead, they were on trial and ....

I think you have answered your own question. The reader needs to know more about what Linda was thinking. It also gives the reader a different perspective on what is happening. Patra and Leo are the ‘unreliable narrators’. When we start to see what Linda is thinking, the reader starts to see how very unreliable the parents’ version is. Perhaps my answer is a little contrived. We all KNOW that Paul is going to die, whether the parents know it or not.