I think there are differences in narrative perspectives that can make a major impact on the story you're telling. Consider the effect on the reader that a particular perspective will have. Consider, too, that there are many types of 1st and 3rd person perspectives.
A 3rd person Omniscient narrator reveals everything to the reader (that he wishes) regardless of the central character's viewpoint - that is, the narrator reveals things directly which the character cannot know. Thus, everything within the narrated world can be on the page: A 3rd person Objective narrator tells the story using only what is available to the five senses - without, for instance, an inner monologue on the thoughts or feelings of individual characters. 3rd person Limited is similar to Omniscient, except that the narration is limited to what the central character experiences or can know.
Obviously, 1st person narrates the story as though it is the central character who is telling it.
Whether or not it actually
is the central character, or even the actual story, is another question entirely. Indeed, the reliability of the narrator is at issue whatever perspective is chosen, and is very important in determing the effect on the reader.
So as to how a particular perspective can affect a story, my personal dilemma may help illustrate.
I'm currently working up a novel set at the end of World War Two which follows a central character (Archer) as he survives combat experience and believes he has found a secret that may have a profound effect on the disposition of the war - and the world after. Part of his personal conflict is that he isn't sure what exactly the secret is, only where its hidden. Indeed, because of this he cannot know whether there is actually a secret at all. To illustrate the effects of narrative perspective, lets apply them to Archer's conflict.
Third person Omniscient opens the scope of the story to everyone within its frame and to a relatively equal degree. Archer's personal narrative may count for little more than his compatriots or his enemies. Also, since the scope of the narrative extends beyond what he himself can know, the reader may be told the answers to questions he is seeking before he becomes aware of them himself. The result of this is that the story can include a
cinematic array of perspectives to illustrate the many dramas of war; that the reader is removed somewhat from the immediacy of Archer's conflict and emotion because so much time is spent elsewhere; and that the mystery of the secret is revealed up front.
Third person Limited narrows the scope to the situations and events directly affecting Archer, but may from time to time digress from his personal situation to examine periphial events that will have some effect on him. There is a great deal of flexibility here as the narrator has a greater degree of freedom than any other perspective, but one loses the scope of omniscience and does not quite gain the intimacy afforded by first person narrative. Still, a benefit to this technique is that some mysteries can be revealed while others (still just outside the frame) are hidden - heightening drama. Another benefit is that this method is far easier to accomplish well than 3rd person Omniscient.
First person, as it is always limited to the central character, is far more intimate and immediate emotionally than the others. Because the reader cannot know elements of the story outside of the narrator's view, the reader shares with him his emotional experiences as he experiences them. This heightens the emotional attachment to a character by a reader, which in turn adds to the drama of Archer's conflict by allowing the reader to share his conflict. Of all the perspectives, this is the one most likely to allow the reader to participate in the events of the story as though he were there. The reader, after all, shares a personal relationship with the narrator...Of all the perspectives, this is also the most limited; we can not know directly the experiences of Archer's enemies or compatriots, nor can we experience events outside his view. Therefore, the story risks becoming cramped, confined, and stale.
With this said, I think it's important to have a clear understanding of what you're trying to do with a particular story, what you're really trying to say (between the lines). I believe all literature, indeed all of "art" is fundamentally concerned with bridging the gap between the "I" and "They," whether in the context of the characters within the story or the relationship between the author and the readers. So how will your choice of narrative perspective affect this? For me, Archer's story is both his coming of age and his "marriage" into society (classically, marriages often symbolized the integration of an individual to society, which was the basis of comedy). Since the first part of the story is his coming of age, or individuation, I feel its important for the reader (and for me...) to have an intimate relationship with him, so that
we have a deeper understanding of both who he is and what his story means. Therefore, I have tentatively concluded that 1st person narration is appropriate, though with perhaps a very limited third person-
like opening (as he has not yet come of age).
Lastly, I think you'll find that distinguishing between characters in a multi-perspective 1st person narrative will largely sort itself out. There are obvious techniques, such as alternating characters with chapters; and more subtle ones, such as cueing your readers based on language, setting, or action. There are other examples as well, such as "Frankenstein" which contains several viewpoints told through alternating perspectives using an "epistollary" device - a story told through letters.
There, I feel much better now. I hope my little discussion has helped you somewhat. It has definitely helped me.
