Talk:Mum and the Sothsegger

[Untitled]
It is not primarily a dream vision. It is primarily a debate poem in form, then is a satire in content. It draws on the dream vision tradition, and this is an important (if relatively small) part of the poem, but that is not its main categorisation either in content or form. I have therefore included the dream vision element, along with a brief description of said dream vision, within the "contents" section instead (where it joins the description of the more predominant satiric elements).

Neither is there any evidence that Mum and the Sothsegger and Richard the Redeless are part of a two-part text. Such thinking is out of date and largely rejected within the academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Static shadows (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if this "thinking is out of date", it should be mentioned in the article with a mention of the fact.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)