Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/47007
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Right now I'm writing a novel in which I use the changing perspectives of two main characters with limited information each to slowly unveil the whole plot to the reader. Both use the past tense and first person (i.e. "When I woke up that morning, rain was pouring down the sky"), as if they were telling pieces of the story after they've experienced it themselves. This concept in itself works quite nicely from a narrative standpoint in my opinion.

I do have a problem, though: One of the two personal narrators needs to die throughout the course of the story.

Now, this leads to a kind of inconsistent situation: If he was dead, he wouldn't be able to tell the story of what happened up to this point afterwards. It destroys the illusion of actually getting the story told by himself.

My question is, now: Is this bad style? Do readers care about something like this or does it fall under "suspension of disbelief"? If it's a problem, what can I do to fix that?

Edit: To add a bit more context: Main character 1 gets killed by main character 2. She doesn't want to kill him, but does it anyways because she's pretending to be part of the "evil state" both were fighting before to smash it from within. He dies thinking that she's bad person, has only taken advantage of him and is cooperating with the state both hated intensely before to save her own life. She has to live with the moral burden of having killed him. I therefore think having him die is a very strong story element and I'd really like to keep it.

Original score: 11