Was George Foos, the man who owned the titular motel, a social historian or a deviant who got off on invading other people's privacy? After careful consideration, I've decided he was both. Being pervert doesn't preclude his observations being culturally relevant, even if they were acquired in an unsavory manner.

I found Foos's commentary on the wounded Vietnam vets visiting his motel with their wives to be especially interesting, but perhaps I am still reeling from The Sympathizer.

Observations of these sorrowful and disastrous subjects is a very difficult and unpleasant task, and consequently, all that remains is regret and pity. There is nothing more disturbing than hearing a subject disclose that he has been betrayed by his country.

He says, as he watches "the subject" have sex from his secret viewing room above their beds. Nothing more disturbing indeed.

Talese allows the conclusions from the selected observations to stand while also analyzing the Voyeur himself, remarking that over the years, Foos "appeared to be distancing himself from himself, changing from first-person to a third-person narrator." Later, Foos starts in on an existential bent ("I've pondered on occasion that perhaps I don't exist, only represent a product of the subject's dreams.") and it makes me curious to see the pieces of his manuscript that Talese did not share. It's this portion that led me to believe that he's not just a sex pervert after all.

Mostly, though.

P.S. I find Talese's reference to Kitty Genovese to be surprising - as a literary journalist of some renown, he should be aware now of how incorrect the original reporting was; while some of the surrounding people may not have rushed to help her, Kitty died in the arms of her neighbor, who did.