The more I read of Waterland, the more I am convinced that history should always be taught in the manner that Tom Crick employs! His personal history, interspersed with the history of the Atkinsons and the Fens seem to only make sense when explained in his non-linear manner. While the story of the Fens and the Atkinsons moves chronologically forward (for the most part), the story of Tom and Mary (as well as the rest of the Cricks) seems to move backward (with exceptions) until the two histories meet. The continual notion expressed by Tom that history moves in circles is perhaps the reason for this intermingling of histories. However, I view the history in this story more as a spiral than a circle, and certainly not the ever popular timeline. This spiral could be what Tom means by "circle"since circle suggests that there can only be one story for each person or group of people that will eventually meet, yet never continue or evolve into other histories. It is an enclosed space where nothing may enter or exit. But a spiral can be infinite and new histories may be created and still look similar. Well, whether I'm geometrically inept or overly philosophical, I've succeeded in utterly confusing myself. Back to the original point of my post... The reason I believe history should be presented in the way Tom relates it is that it makes the story more intriguing and interesting. I must confess that in the early chapters, and in some of the reading for this week, I failed to understand the point of the history lessons--even though the history professor himself had declared how important history is. Upon reading the story of Helen Atkinson and her father, everything I had read previously made sense, as only it could with the knowledge of the history and the way is was conveyed. Beginning in the "Here and Now" and moving backward into history aids in understanding how we (and Tom and his class) relate to the rest of the world. **Please forgive my incoherent and unrealized entry this week. The more I read of this book, the more questions arise whereas I cannot seem to develop a cohesive argument. :) On a somewhat abstract note, this novel calls to mind the film Memento in the method of storytelling. Just wondering if anyone else made the same observation or thinks I'm completely off-base.