From what I understand now, I think you are correct: Tight third-single would be less than effective in portraying the sort of cumulative mis-understandings that you describe. It could be done with a 3rd party, as you say, but then that observer would tend to take over the story, and a good deal of the emotional impact on the main characters would be bled off.
An omniscient narrator would solve the problem of needing to be "inside the heads" of the two main characters, rather than simply observing them from the outside, as 3rd-single would. The drawback there is that using an unseen-but-all-seeing narrator is distancing for the reader; again, emotional impact suffers.
Since the premise of your example story has to be based on the reader seeing both the basis for the assumptions each character makes and in what ways those perceptions are causing failures of communication, about the only choice the authors can make is to allow the VP to alternate. It is not, as with the example of Barrayar, that the culture/perception clash is merely an effective part of the story; in the case of Local Custom, it appears to BE the story. That makes all the difference.
The most useful aspect of any type of viewpoint is in its power to reveal by observation--once one has decided on what needs to be revealed, the choice of VP character(s) becomes clearer. At the same time, that choice can also build in limits for the viewpoint character, particularly in single-VP, as he cannot really observe himself. Lois solves this about as neatly as it can be solved with the internal dialogs she writes, but still.... How completely could we ever really know Miles, for instance, until we saw him through someone's else's eyes? Miles via Miles is truthful as far as it goes (being as accurate as he allows himself to be), but it is an incomplete portrait. Miles via Mark, however, reveals different facets; Miles via Ivan, others; Miles via Ekaterin, still more. And so on.
Playing with viewpoint can be fascinating. Hard work, too, and mistakes are costly. I think even Lois eventually agreed that DI would have been a stronger book with Ekaterin's POV, but she didn't really recognize that until nearly the end. By then, it would have necessitated a rewrite almost back to page one, and she wasn't willing to do that. So she let it go... and DI is her weakest, least satisfying book.
Re: POV
From what I understand now, I think you are correct: Tight third-single would be less than effective in portraying the sort of cumulative mis-understandings that you describe. It could be done with a 3rd party, as you say, but then that observer would tend to take over the story, and a good deal of the emotional impact on the main characters would be bled off.
An omniscient narrator would solve the problem of needing to be "inside the heads" of the two main characters, rather than simply observing them from the outside, as 3rd-single would. The drawback there is that using an unseen-but-all-seeing narrator is distancing for the reader; again, emotional impact suffers.
Since the premise of your example story has to be based on the reader seeing both the basis for the assumptions each character makes and in what ways those perceptions are causing failures of communication, about the only choice the authors can make is to allow the VP to alternate. It is not, as with the example of Barrayar, that the culture/perception clash is merely an effective part of the story; in the case of Local Custom, it appears to BE the story. That makes all the difference.
The most useful aspect of any type of viewpoint is in its power to reveal by observation--once one has decided on what needs to be revealed, the choice of VP character(s) becomes clearer. At the same time, that choice can also build in limits for the viewpoint character, particularly in single-VP, as he cannot really observe himself. Lois solves this about as neatly as it can be solved with the internal dialogs she writes, but still.... How completely could we ever really know Miles, for instance, until we saw him through someone's else's eyes? Miles via Miles is truthful as far as it goes (being as accurate as he allows himself to be), but it is an incomplete portrait. Miles via Mark, however, reveals different facets; Miles via Ivan, others; Miles via Ekaterin, still more. And so on.
Playing with viewpoint can be fascinating. Hard work, too, and mistakes are costly. I think even Lois eventually agreed that DI would have been a stronger book with Ekaterin's POV, but she didn't really recognize that until nearly the end. By then, it would have necessitated a rewrite almost back to page one, and she wasn't willing to do that. So she let it go... and DI is her weakest, least satisfying book.
Um, IMO.