I wasn't quite sure what forum to post this in, because I think I'm probably going to end up referring to several different books. But what with the Amnion, I figured it was maybe most relevant to this one.
Anyway, in his books, as a lot of authors do, SRD addresses various moral/ethical/philosophical issues. No big surprise. Religion (though The Gap seems to steer clear of this... or, at least, books 1 and 2 do. I've not read the other three yet - so, if I may be so selfish, I'd ask that if, in replying, you're going to refer to specific parts of books 3, 4 or 5, that warning is given), rape, despair... the list goes on.
But one that, as I said, crops up in The Gap a lot, plus in a few short stories - and, though more loosely, even in The Chronicles (I'll explain shortly), is this genetic engineering (or, as I said in the title, identity) business.
We've got the Amnion. They're obviously very pro-GM; "They played with their shapes the way humans played with fashion, sometimes for utility, sometimes for adornment." And their method of contact is of course the mutagen.
And then, in Animal Lover from Daughter Of Regals, the protagonist visits the game reserve where
Spoiler
Paracels has been drastically engineering the animals to be able to use weaponry, and to be far more intelligent than they originally were.
But what I can't quite figure out is where SRD actually stands on this. I think it's safe to say that, in The Chronicles in particular, he makes his views on religion - certainly organised religion - pretty clear. But with this, I can't quite tell if he approves or not. He states in the introduction to Mythological Beasts that it's a "theme that I happen to feel strongly about". But in that instance I get the definite impression that SRD considers it a good thing. Norman's breaking out of this routine, monotonous, environment.
In fact, it's just occurred to me that maybe it's a deliberate inversion of values: the world they live in, with their biomitters telling them that "You are OK", with the semi-sentient mobiles, and the generic, slow-witted - merely from the lack of use of their minds - population ("His wife had a round bland face... She looked at his lump vaguely, but there was no recognition in her eyes") is so bizarrely unnatural, that the seemingly abnormal transformation that Norman undergoes is actually the 'natural' response of his body to this environment. But I digress.
In Animal Lover, however, it's obviously not considered a good thing. Our heroes do all they can to stop them getting out into the world in the ending scenes. But is SRD opining on genetic modification in general, or is it only this somewhat sinister purpose? I can't work it out.
And that brings me onto the Amnion, who, as I say, I've only encountered briefly. When Davies is born, we've got the pretty obvious "'I'm Morn Hyland. You're Morn Hyland. This is wrong.'" (my italics).
But throughout the whole episode at Enablement Station, Morn (who, for all her problems, I'm taking to be, at her core, morally 'sound'. Above all else, she looks up to her idyllic picture of her UMCP parents for guidance etc.) seems absolutely terrified of the implications of Amnion procedures. I can understand why she'd hate the idea of losing her son, but it seems to go beyond that.
"It just betrays humanity, all humanity."
As far as I can tell, the reason that humanity and Amnion officially stay away from each other is because of the fear of the Amnion mutagen. But we see with the Amnion emissary who boards Captain's Fancy that it doesn't entirely erase their "self". So what's the basis for this fear?
The real contradiction, as I see it, came earlier in Forbidden Knowledge. The whole InterTech debacle. To me, Donaldson seems positively caustic when he mentions the 'reasoning' behind the Humanity Riots.
"Humankind had no objection to soldiers with laser-cutters built into their fingers or infrared scanners embedded in their skulls. On the other hand, humankind objected strenuously to soldiers genetically engineered for faster reflexes, greater strength, or improved loyalty."
It could be that my bias (I'm, on the whole, in favour of genetic science) is clouding my own interpretation. Perhaps SRD is in fact agreeing with "humankind" here. But it seems slightly sarcastic to me. Intertech's "crime against nature" is put in quotation marks, as if he's distancing himself from that particular viewpoint.
So, yeah. What I'm really looking for is any ideas or knowledge as to where he stands (and, while we're at it, your own opinions) on the matter.
VAGUE SPOILERS
I mentioned earlier that he brings this issue into the Chronicles a little. I won't go too much into it, but I just think that it's kind of related to that whole theme in the Second Chronicles of holding onto one's 'self'. When, alternately, Avery and Covenant end up, for one reason or another, almost catatonic, there's a lot of emphasis placed on the idea that, although they seem to be stripped of everything they essentially are, right at the centre, they've still got their Self to hold on to, and that's what means that they can get through it. To me, that's kind of equivalent to the notion of changing their genetic identity, but, at all costs, wanting to hold onto their consciousness.
And again, at the very end of White Gold Wielder, we see Linden in her particularly agonising mental torment:
Spoiler
when Jehannum possesses her in Kiril Threndor
Spoiler
"It violated her spirit as fundamentally as rape".
The external body is irrelevant and can be ignored - or perhaps altered? - but what's happening to her mind is utterly devastating.
And above all, she considers the only way to defend against it is to hold onto her consciousness, to who she is.
Spoiler
"With glee and hunger, the Raver urged her to let go... Consciously, she clung to herself and refused oblivion, remained where the Raver could hurt her and hurt her, so that she could watch."
I don't know. It was just something I've been thinking about.
... oh, well in that case, I agree with most of your points and observations. 