I'm the same way with pure sci-fi, just don't get it. It does nothing for me but I keep thinking I should keep trying because it's one of my favourtie genres when it comes to TV and movies. I can't work it out :/
For me I think it's that it tends to be so focused on the technology that it often forgets about characterization. I also feel that hard scifi tends to be one of the most reactionary genres out there in terms of social justice stuff. (This may be because I've read quite a few "masters" of the genre and haven't kept up with the newer stuff, however.)
Also, a more unworthy reason: I get the impression from reviews and author interviews that hard scifi as a genre is considered a cut above mere "ordinary" speculative fiction. When people I know admit to reading scifi, they often follow it with "but only hard scifi. Not fantasy or soft scifi or anything," as if hard scifi is more challenging or intelligent or has more literary merit. And I'm an iconoclast.
That's not to say hard scifi isn't challenging or doesn't have literary merit; it's more that I don't think the genre in itself grants superiority, any more than I believe books are innately superior to comics or movies or any other form of story. It's what you do with the template, not the template itself.
That's the thing that's always bugged me about the elevation of the hard SF kind is that we celebrate it for getting the "science" right, when really they get the physics' right. Biology, sociology, psychology, all these things seem to get a pass. I don't know why, but it's always bugged me. Computer Science on the other hand is almost always done wrong. "Aurora" attempts at being "New Space Opera" but fails miserably.
Bahaha. I have no idea if he's getting the physics right or not... my suspicion is that if I actually knew physics, I'd find it equally problematic. Fortunately, I'm blissfully ignorant.
There are a few authors who get computer science right, and I revel in supreme nerd bliss while reading the books, particularly if they involve bad jokes about vim vs emacs. It's one of the reasons I have a soft spot for Charles Stross. Greg Egan, too.
Also, a more unworthy reason: I get the impression from reviews and author interviews that hard scifi as a genre is considered a cut above mere "ordinary" speculative fiction. When people I know admit to reading scifi, they often follow it with "but only hard scifi. Not fantasy or soft scifi or anything," as if hard scifi is more challenging or intelligent or has more literary merit. And I'm an iconoclast.
That's not to say hard scifi isn't challenging or doesn't have literary merit; it's more that I don't think the genre in itself grants superiority, any more than I believe books are innately superior to comics or movies or any other form of story. It's what you do with the template, not the template itself.
There are a few authors who get computer science right, and I revel in supreme nerd bliss while reading the books, particularly if they involve bad jokes about vim vs emacs. It's one of the reasons I have a soft spot for Charles Stross. Greg Egan, too.