PEACE
I just finished PEACE (and Watchmen, but everyone is still tired from discussing that the last time 'round, so I'll forbear, aside from noting that it appears to me to be far from clear whether the Pirates tale applies to Rorschach or Ozymandias or the owl-dude) and I am a bit confused.
My central confusion is over master-narrative: which do I apply to render meaning out of the shifting, kaleidoscopic pieces and fragments of stories and anecdotes and ruminations? I've narrowed it down to two possibilities.
One, I take the taoist Tale of the Jade Pillow, and the whole book is simply Den's imaging whilst his Aunt negotiates for the Egg (or earlier.) This makes the book fairly straightforward, with none of the more exotic possibilities I've seen mentioned in the archives, such as Weer-as-mass-murderer, Weer-as-dead-narrator (which I didn't notice at all.), Weer-as-single-murderer... etc. That counts against it, but Wolfe can write reasonable simple tales (Ex. There Are Doors struck me as fairly simple, at least as compared against the Sun tales).
Two, I home in on the tale of the pharmacist, Julius Smart. Weer himself says that Smart is the central character when he is recounting the tale of the alchemist^H^H^Hpharmacist, even though he appears only obliquely in most of the novel. This is, I sense, a vastly more interesting avenue of approach. Weer early on claims that he will be utterly honest- excepting that he will be omitting things. Obviously something is being hidden, since we do not see anything that would account for the inordinate importance Weer places on Smart otherwise (assuming that we reject the Pillow hypothesis, since dreams are but a variant of lies, which renders null Weer's promise not to lie, to only omit.) What exactly I am at a loss to say. I have a vague intuition that there was something less than licit about Weer's sudden restoration to wealth (he mentions at least twice that the family fortune was lost, and that he was poor in his fifties, but became even more wealthy than ever in his sixties; why he does not say.), and this may be connected, but there is no 'smoking pocket knife', to twist a phrase. Has anyone else thought along these lines and hunted down a more satisfactory conclusion?
Salaam,
~Maru