In Response To An Overly Cynical Post

Before reading this post, you should all read Mary's post titled "An Overly Cynical Post."  I was going to comment on her post, but then realized that as an actual blog post, this would be the longest one I've written all year. For that reason, some of what I said is in direct response to her post, so context may be necessary.
(Hi Mary! Your title is accurate. As much as I appreciated your cynicism and your post, I think you're being a bit harsh on Butler. I hope you don't mind that this post is basically arguing with your post, I just found myself writing a lot about this. I responded with what I thought was the appropriate amount of snarkiness.)

1. First off, if we're talking the south in the early 1800's, we would be hard-pressed to encounter an accepting white person by chance given the fairly limited number of white people we've met. Also, Rufus is white but an example of someone in the 19th century who was not so discriminatory. He seems to have made friends, more than just a master-slave relationship, with multiple black kids.
Rufus's mother is not entirely an awful person; she shows a helluva lot of affection to Rufus. Even his father seems to show what I interpreted as compassion when he offers to buy Dana after hearing what Kevin intends to do. They are of course violently racist, but again, not surprising for the time and place.

2. Alright, you got me there. I may have laughed pretty hard at that conversation template. Most of the dialogue between Kevin and Dana is pretty formulaic and trashy. However, large amounts of dialogue may not always decrease the quality of a novel. In fact, I often find that books with lots of dialogue are easy to read - they kind of sweep you along. Sure, readability does not equal quality, but this could be an intentional attempt to make the reader feel more engaged. I personally find the majority of the dialogue honest and engaging, but I can understand how you may not feel the same way.

3. This isn't the first science fiction book we've read. I didn't hear you up in arms over the implausibility of ice-9 when we read Cat's Cradle. Although its explanation seemed reasonably scientific, it is just as much science fiction as time travel is.
When you say you were initially able to suspend your disbelief and allow Dana to travel to the past, I assume you had no issue with her clothing travelling with her. What's so different about attaching a canvas bag? Even another human being? Kevin's still just a bunch of atoms when it comes down to it - not really physically different than clothing or a bag. If you want to know the rules for this time travel all at once, I think you're expecting too much. How are Dana and Kevin supposed to know how this works? A little mystery/confusion is something that sometimes comes with a first-person narrative.
As you said at the end, some of your problems could end up being solved by just reading more. It could be that there is no limit to the things Dana could bring if she tried hard enough - a car, maybe. Or all of California 1976. Who knows.

4. I find it hard to believe that the supposed metatextuality makes the novel any harder for you to read. Now you may just be looking for things to complain about. In any case, it makes a lot of sense to me that Dana should be a writer given that the novel is written in the first person. Kindred could be read as an account of these events in Dana's life as written by Dana, as written by Butler. I'm not sure as to the significance of that interpretation, but the solution may again be to read on.

I'm sure that this won't make you feel any differently about Kindred. I'm just hoping to reflect the views of others in the class who do enjoy the novel and to try to protect them from your cynicism.