Talk:Mother Night

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mother Night article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 years

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Slaughterhouse-Five#Literary techniques|"so it goes..."]] The anchor (#Literary techniques) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Use of Metafiction/literary device section

I'd like to preface this by saying I'm just an undergraduate student and not a literary scholar, but I'm in the process of writing an undergraduate thesis on Mother Night and am extremely knowledgeable about the work and about Vonnegut in general.

I can't say I'm a fan of this section, so I've done a little editing. First of all, the section is practically unintelligible, particularly the last paragraph. Secondly, I think it's misleading--while the novel does use metafiction techniques, they function in a different way than most metafiction. Instead of drawing attention to the artifice of the novel, Vonnegut is trying to pass the text off as a historical document. His use of meta-fiction in fact enhances his stance as "editor" of the text rather than as the author. Before I started editing this wasn't exactly clear.

I'd love to hear thoughts before making a major overhaul, though, as I'm brand new to wikipedia and in fact just signed up for an account for this page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyelinePigeon (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Hello to Unsigned contributor- who added previous comments. Just a reminder of wikipedia rules. Please see the help pages.There's plenty of rules for wikipedia, and if you don't follow them, your edits will be undone. Remember to seek verified facts, avoid original research (your own opinion is not for articles) and NPOV. You can find articles, sources and references that agree with your opinion(s), and use those. Good luck, and best wishes.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

209.212.28.62|209.212.28.62]] (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another thought on the "Literary devices" section: Derrida's deconstruction was not well-known in English-speaking circles until the late 1960s at the earliest; his book On Grammatology was published in 1967 and translated into English in 1976. How can a French philosopher's examination of early 1900's structural linguistics (a school of thought which was outdated by the 1950s) have had any bearing on a book written by an American author in 1961?205.118.120.153 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]