Marco Polo Relic, Adriatic,
Edgar Payne, (1883-1947),
oil on canvas.
When the question of first person narration comes up, a good number of people will avow they don't like it and won't read it. - unless it is done well.
A comment that, while safe and true, isn't at all helpful.
We assume that some may dislike the intimacy and identification, and that others may find first person limiting and restrictive. They prefer panaorama POV.
And there is no question that a strong "voice" is necessary to carry it off. Otherwise, the narrative may become as tedious as listening to one's dotty old aunt reminisce.
Seldom do we hear the specifics of why first person may piss people off.
So, I was delighted to read a post by Nephele Tempest of the Knight Agency recently where she discussed some first person faults.
Naturally I neglected to nail down the date and now I can't find it to provide a proper link. My apologies. I hope I can paraphrase her comments with reasonable accuracy, for I thought they were valuable.
(1) long-winded internal musings: extensive dissertations wherein the protagonist dissects their thoughts and feelings in excruciating detail.
One can see how this would really bugger the pace of a novel.
(2) double voice: authorial insertions, which sound out of character. I wonder if addressing the reader by use of "you" is sometimes an example of this, if it is too direct.
(3) Clumsy foreshadowing: the "little did I know" fault.
Not only clumsy, but a cheap cliche.