My story for the Rochester anthology, North Coast 2034, is moving along, but not on chartered roads. I tell my writing students that there are no hard-and-fast rules for writing fiction but that there are tested guidelines which usually make stories more effective. One of those guidelines is that if you're writing in first person, you stay in first person. You do not combine first-person sections of a narrative with third-person sections.
But that's what I seem to be doing in this story.
I can think of only one book that does this (not counting those where the first-person parts are in a diary or other device that permits monologues). That is William Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury, which includes third-person sections in Dilcey's POV, along with the multiple first of Quentin et. al. Even Faulkner couldn't, in my opinion, make this work well, so why the hell am I trying it? Mostly because I like my protagonist's voice in first person, and I need the sections with the other voice. So at this point my options are:
-- leave it like this and call it "experimental" (Except that clearly the story is a traditionally plotted, linear narrative.)
-- change the protag's POV to third.
--change the secondary character's section to first -- multiple-first POV also being risky but not as weird as what I've got now.
-- give up on the whole structure and start over.
I don't know yet which I'll do. The story is only a few thousand words long and I'm still feeling my way into it. I just wish I had a better map. In the last six months, one story and one novel have totally died on me (see previous despairing posts), and I'd rather keep this one alive and moving, if I can.