I recall her worst, which she allowed to be published once, and then refused that it ever be published again, because it was so bad.
Title? I didn’t know that and it increases my respect for her. Not every author recognizes their own stinkers. The best of the best produce them, from time to time.
I read her plots as more sociological dystopian than hatred of western civilization. Look at the present Deep State situation. It pervades everything, including what we currently acknowledge as western civilization. I can see an outsider (which is how I’d characterize Butler in her time) looking for ways to *overcome*.
Heinlein, who was a patriot,could be quite biting when writing about political constructs.
The book is “Survivor”
https://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Doubleday-Science-Fiction-Octavia/dp/0385133855
Butler considered it really, really, bad.
I agree with her. It was filled with idea after idea that was simply not believable.
Good science fiction takes one big, difficult to believe thing, (such as faster than light drive, or reliable ESP) and builds a whole world or storyline from it.
But being confronted by unbelievable thing after unbelievable thing, after unbelievable thing just converts science fiction into a series of “miracles”.