At the moment I’m thinking through how I want to use the narrative voice. On the one hand, using narration gives a scene or a story context, especially in short stories that move across times and spaces like these do. On the other hand, narration can give a ‘Wonder Years’ vibe to a story, which purports to offer a definitive account of events, a revisionist voice of twee sentimentality.
The problem is one I see in many teenage memoirs: that of the rose tinted glasses. I reckon teenagers can be the most wonderful, intelligent, imaginative, heartbroken, worldy-wise people on the planet. Those years can be vital and important - hence the book. At the same time, teenagers can be complete dicks (I know I was). Sometimes they can do be those things all at once.
I’d prefer the stories to be ambiguous in context and detail, but to carry sufficient information for the reader to work out what’s happening, without offering post-hoc rationalisation. I’m not sure any art is an objective portrayal, but at least calling attention to one’s own subjectivity might make for a more relatable read.