Hi. Just thought I’d drop a few notes on this, as I listened to the story for the first time today. Intriguing to say the least, but not believable as well. Don’t know exactly how, or if it’s the case, but I just have a gut feeling about it. What I’m sure of though, is that three of your four points do not at all add up in your favour. Maybe even all of them.
1: Yes, clearly exhibitionists to some degree. Get over it. And no one ever claims they’re oblivious to the fact that they can be watched (notice my use of the word ‘can’ here, not saying they knew they were constantly being watched by Diane Weipert).
2: You’ve got exhibitionism all wrong, sorry. Basic lesson: It’s not about showing off something beautiful or positive or good. It can be of course, but that’s not what it is.
3: We don’t know how tall the buildings are, or what kind of buildings they are. If the neighbors’ building isn’t too tall (one or two storeys for example), you could easily have a perfect view to the bedroom, and an imperfect view to the roof (but still a view that allows you to see what’s going on (she doesn’t specify whether or not the view to the rooftop is perfect)). (We only know that Diane’s building is the tallest one nearby.)
4: You’ve got a point, simply because she says “all of a sudden”. But this is only an interview, and mistakes are made during interviews all the time. Maybe she said it too hastily. Maybe she did realise it all along. But the fact that it comes at the end of a radio piece doesn’t at all mean that it comes at the end of the actual story. Storytelling doesn’t work like that. But I’ll give you this one because of the “all of a sudden”. Lucky.
(And by the way, you all of a sudden accept that they were exhibitionists?)
My only criticism toward the piece is that it feels like fiction, completely made up. All of it makes perfect, logical sense, it’s not that, but it just doesn’t feel true, somehow. Too good to be true perhaps.