Butler's straightforward style

So a few days ago, Dezy made a blog post about this same topic, and it intrigued me. I commented on it then, but would like to touch again on it here. I am planning on writing a response paper about this very topic, and think that a blog post will help me get all my ideas out there, and develop them further.
To begin with, I will specify what I mean by Butler's "straightforward" style. This refers to the way in which she writes the plot in a very clear manner, where few readers would be confused burrito as to what was happening, unlike say Reed's Mumbo Jumbo. The straightforward style also refers to the way in which Butler makes her points about the antebellum south, 1976, and the world in general. She does this very clearly, almost (and in some cases literally) stating that "In the slavery era, even when they were not being beaten, slaves were undergoing incredible hardships. In 1976, the prejudices clearly known during the slavery era are still around much more than many people would like to admit. And deeply studying the past will affect you as a person, if not physically (although maybe, from lack of sleep or something), then at least mentally, in that you will look at the world very differently." Side note: Are we all slaves to our perceptions of the world? Okay back to the subject at hand. So Butler clearly lays out her plot and her point, which differs drastically in both respects from what I have gotten used to in this class.
Plot-wise, the clearness of Butler's writing is very helpful. However, one downside to having an easily understandable plot is that it makes the reader focus more on the plot than other aspects of the book, such as the points Butler is trying to make. She pities the reader and so lays out her points very clearly as well. I would argue that this is a problem, because she does not let the reader use his or her own judgement in deciding what to take from the story told. I am less likely to trust Butler's judgement on any subject of opinion than my own, and so her clearly telling what the point of the story is makes me take that point less seriously. I can try to ignore that point and use my own unclouded judgement, but the problem is that my judgement has already been clouded, and so I don't know if I can trust even it. In the end, I must, but her decisiveness still plants the seeds of doubt in my mind. Vonnegut I believe does a very good job of letting the reader use his or her own judgement on the topics explored, or at least he influences readers in a much more subtle manner. At the beginning, his character of himself does state something along the lines of "I have told my children to strictly avoid massacres." However, this is told as a person opinion, whereas in Butler's case I feel as if she is telling all of her readers how they should feel about slavery, and I do not wish to become any sort of slave to her views of the world, even if they do seem to coincide with mine.
My overall take of Butler's style in Kindred is that she writes a clear plot, which is nice, but this leads to her also clearly telling her points (or perhaps she writes a clear plot so she can clearly state her points through clearly defined characters such as Dana, who is written in a very flattering light). Because Butler makes her points so clearly, it undermines my acceptance of them.
If anyone thought of different points that Butler was trying to make, please let me know! Also I apologize for the burrito, I just thought it would be fun to add one in the middle of my post.