In English narratological criticism, the terms metanarrative and metafiction are on the whole used interchangeably. Even in German narratological discourse, the term metanarrative has failed to figure prominently. This situation has now changed drastically in the wake of a landmark contribution to narrative theory by Ansgar Nünning, the prominent German narratologist. Nünning's seminal paper, 1 published in the Festschrift for Wilhelm Füger, one of the doyens of German narratology, has put the subject of metanarra-tive on the map of narratological enquiry. It not only makes a case for metanarrative as a key concept within narrative theory but additionally pro-poses an extensive typology of different kinds of metanarrative. This essay is designed as a response to Nünning's piece. I will attempt to complement Nünning's categories by focussing less on the extensiveness and placing of metanarrative commentary in the text (as he does) than on what precisely is metanarration, and how it can be distinguished from metafiction. I will also be countering some of Nünning's theoretical presuppositions. The article falls into four sections:(1) a summary of Nünning's German piece;(2) remarks on the metanarrative/metafiction distinction;(3) a descriptive analysis of types of metanarration, proposing a new model and some additional terminology;(4) a summary and outlook, focussing on the remaining open questions, including a critique of Nünning's concept of" Mimesis des Erzählens".