The Inner Studio, Tenth Street,
William Merritt Chase,
oil on canvas, c.1882.
I'm not sure what the proper technical term is for this minor variance: authorial intrusion? direct address?
Anyway, from my usual source ( someone, somewhere , recently), I read that use of the second person (you) in a first person narrative makes for a disconnect with the reader when used in descriptive or internal passages.
Or, to use the critiquer's cliche, "throws the reader out of the story."
As usual, one excludes dialogue.
An example given -- not in direct dialogue -- followed something like : I hurried into the building and made for the elevator. You know I'm never on time, surfacing in the middle of a first person account of headlong action.
I can see that. The direct address to the reader jars the flow.
Suddenly, the reader is no longer eavesdropping. Instead the reader is in immediate conversation with the author. Which can be a bit startling unless the interaction is set up that way from the beginning.
On the other hand, in an internal analysis after an incident, the first person might observe to herself: I couldn't. You don't use a man for posthumous sexual revenge. You just don't.
Here, you is used not as an address, but rather as the natural colloquial alternative for the formal, impersonal one to state a principle, an ethic, a belief, as in one does not use...
I believe this use of you is a cat of a different colour.
Still, it might give a reader, lulled by the I's, he's, my's and me's, his's and her's, pause for a huh? reorientation.
Gentle reader, how do you view?