Henrietta's story is divided into three parts by theme (Life, Death and Immortality), how would the story have been different if told chronologically? 

This is a story with many layers. Though it's not told chronologically, it is divided into three sections. Discuss the significance of the titles given to each part: Life, Death, and Immortality. How would the story have been different if it were told chronologically?

Elegant and brilliant narrative strategy.

I think that the way in which the narrative was arranged hooked the reader immediately. There was the sense of mystery about it -- a desire to find out not only what happened, but how and even why. And then we get the impact all this had on the family and the world as well.

I can imagine how dry and uninteresting it would have been had it been told and published in some scientific journal. I had to keep reminding myself-- this is a true story! Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

The complexity and depth of "Immortal Henrietta" is one of the things that appealed to me most. I saw four distinct stories within the story and each could stand on their own as a subject of a novel. Obviously, first and foremost is Henrietta's story, and that of her family members - a tragedy. Then you have the story of medical ethics. The story of scientific advancement is another thread. Lastly, and what was most interesting to me, is the story of Rebecca Skloot and the challenges she overcame to bring this book to life. I don't think a chronological approach would have done justice to each of these different tales and believe the back-and-forth in time approach was the perfect technique!