What's wrong with retro?

To continue on with that train of thought.

What's wrong with retro?

I don't mean ironic retro, I mean proud retro.

I realized after the fact that what I always loved about S.F. when I was a kid was the adventure and imagination.

I mean, I like "Ideas" as much as the next guy, but what I really want is story.

Much as a couple of decades ago I stopped reading standard medieval type fantasy because it was all the same, I'm now getting tired of current S.F. because of its pretentious profunditry (not a word, but should be). 

Save me from your philosophy and politics!  Tell me a damn story.

My favorite S.F. were writers like Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny.   In as much as liked Asimov and Heinlein, it was because they were fun reads, not because of the ideas.

I read to enjoy myself.

Current S.F. writers like Ian Banks and Lois McMasters Bujold who tell rollicking galaxy leaping stories, I still like.

I can't stomach William Gibson anymore.  I can't read David Brin and Orson Scott Card and Frank Herbert past the first few books.  Quit shoving your political philosophy down my throat.  And other modern S.F. writers who exude an elitist, "we're better than you because we are scientists," I can't read you either.

I understand there is an appetite for these hard core S.F. books.  I understand that there is a tendency to be "pure."

But the minute you start making a big deal over the difference between S.F. and Sci-fi, you lose me.