In some sense, science fiction isn't really a genre. It's really more the lifting of certain restrictions that are in the other genres. You want alternate rules of physics, which is how Greg Egan rolls? Well, you're pretty much automatically in science fiction... even if the story you subsequently tell within those alternate rules of physics are an otherwise normal romance, or adventure, or whatever.
So whereas a when you read a western, you basically know everything about all the basics of the world, from the basic laws of physics through having a pretty decent idea of why "the Claytons would like to burn down the town" (despite having just those nine words, a genre-savvy Western reader has already got three or four basic plots in mind), and thus those things do not need to be explained, in science fiction you need at least some explanation of how the world is different.
Jamming that into a story pretty much has to come from somewhere else. Even in non-science fiction, seeing a novel perfectly balance Character, Plot, and Dialogue, to say nothing of the other elements of a story, is extremely unusual. I mean, like, award-winning unusual. Throw in the requirement that you have World Building in there and you'll generally have to pay the penalty somewhere else. It's just part of reading science fiction.
I can not recall if I first saw this argument from Niven or Asimov (or, worst case, one of the other classic writers); anyone who does please reference if you'd like. Unfortunately, my science fiction bookshelf is all meatspace and the indexing is terrible.
Honestly, that just sounds like an excuse for bad writing. There are science fiction authors who can do a good job at maintaining this balance. For me, Greg Egan just hasn't been one of them.
Yes, there are science fiction authors who do good characters. Lots of them, even.
However, I would ask you to consider how many of those stories take place in a literally different shape of space-time.
Not just lip service to vaguely handwaved "strange space-times" in the style of Lovecraft, either, but extensively realized alternate geometries that drive the story.
There's a reason you don't get all of these things at once. At least, I can't think of a story that hits all these points at once.
Btw, I'm not expecting you to change your mind about Egan's work. Even by the standards of science fiction, I'd consider him a niche taste. If he's not to yours, party on and enjoy what you want to. I'm just trying to explain his work.
So whereas a when you read a western, you basically know everything about all the basics of the world, from the basic laws of physics through having a pretty decent idea of why "the Claytons would like to burn down the town" (despite having just those nine words, a genre-savvy Western reader has already got three or four basic plots in mind), and thus those things do not need to be explained, in science fiction you need at least some explanation of how the world is different.
Jamming that into a story pretty much has to come from somewhere else. Even in non-science fiction, seeing a novel perfectly balance Character, Plot, and Dialogue, to say nothing of the other elements of a story, is extremely unusual. I mean, like, award-winning unusual. Throw in the requirement that you have World Building in there and you'll generally have to pay the penalty somewhere else. It's just part of reading science fiction.
I can not recall if I first saw this argument from Niven or Asimov (or, worst case, one of the other classic writers); anyone who does please reference if you'd like. Unfortunately, my science fiction bookshelf is all meatspace and the indexing is terrible.