This was hard to read; the writer really did not come from the school of succinctness. If the writer is reading this, please try making an edit where you remove as much of the fluff and rephrase sentences like:

> When I read this detail, tucked away near the end of a Guardian article, I winced to see another of my predictions come true; that the ‘Butlerian Jihad’ would soon enter public life not as mere literary metaphor, but as a kind of political vocabulary, one destined to spiral into paranoia and violence.

Into something like:

> This idea of the "Butlerian Jihad" horrified me. We are misunderstanding Herbert's subtle warning about humans being forced to become like machines as a rallying cry against AI companies. I fear that this will lead to paranoia and violence.

I think that if the entire article was edited like that it would be a lot more readable.

I find that the first paragraph tells a better narrative. I prefer it muchly. The second paragraph doesn't make sense and is saying more than the first. It feels both dumbed down and more confusing.

They’re saying that the popular conception of a “Butlerian Jihad” is a pale shadow of what Frank Herbert outlined over the course of four novels, all of which are… look, have you read any of them? Whatever virtues you care to ascribe to Dune, “succinct” is not one of them.

I strongly prefer the original to your edit.

Maybe he should run it through AI to get a more readable version.

The author did not say they felt horror, nor fear, nor misunderstanding.

They winced at repetition and predictability, and they let the reader experience their own emotion that followed.

As well intentioned as it is, these kind of edits subvert the author's intent -- and in this case, also erases evidence of a culture that uses apostrophes for quoting.

Why not ask an LLM to summarize it for you if you don't have the patience to sit with some prose for a bit.

I disagree, I thought it was well-written.

Its' greater sin in my view was attempting to present simple pedantry as politically relevant. The literary criticism I found enjoyable, convincing, and devoid of actionable political insight.

Your proposal does not mean the same thing as the original paragraph.

Style is a thing. Your version is not better.

Why would you argue yours is better?

Your version is considerably worse, and imo, more verbose. It misses a multitude of subtleties that the author packs into a single phrase, and frankly, doesn’t even come close to saying the same thing.

I chalk it up to an American technical class who consider the height of good writing to be an O’Reilly book.