No justification, however - it devalues the work and degrades the writer and the reader. Let's see. The points where the narrator seems to address the reader are analogous to musing aloud, or possibly the recitation to a counselor (like, say, Holden Caulfield does in Catcher in the Rye). This is not very satisfying and will probably be gone in the first revision. The break where the narrator says that he can't go on with his story about another character is not the writer addressing the editor, but rather actually part of the story - it may get revised away.
I'm thinking that I'll probably write about ten or twelve thousand words, then see where it all seems to be going and develop a definite outline. At that point, I'll start to see what looks to be working and such. I'll decide if a novel is where this is headed, or if it should be broken up into short stories, or just discarded.
It's a little tricky trying to keep the chronology straight. It is also very difficult not to put current neologisms into the slang-talking mouths of characters of decades past. Although some characters are pretty crusty, it about kills me to add the essential obscenities to their speech; it still shocks me to read it in other's work, and I can't stand it in my own. I guess I'll need to get over it.