Diderot, 70-170

This reading made me wonder who or what is the moralizing force in the novel, or if there is one at all. Jacques and his maitre are neither religious men nor necessarily anti-religious and seem to believe instead in a mixture of fate and accident.
Is there supposed to be a moral aspect to the story at all, if not, what was diderot's objective in writing it?
Even Religious figures like monks and priests are depicted as not better and maybe worse than normal people.
At this point the novel still feels very arbitrary with no specific goal or point in mind. It seems to follow with Jacques and his maitre's general outlook on life.

Jaques Le Fataliste et son Maitre . Post 1

This book is hilarious.

Already in the first 30 pages Diderot plays with some import themes the most obvious of which is the author-reader relationship. He addresses the reader in a very conversational tone, and comments on the reader's demands, and his willingness or unwillingness to meet them. These casual exchanges inset both the author and reader into the text. Diderot makes himself a player in his own story, therefore asserting his ownership and power over it, and the reader is treated as an active force which influences the flow of the story in various ways. I wonder how this relationship with play out over the course of the novel.

I also really enjoy what I understand of his word-play. The Coup de feut and coup de foudre comparison is great, and so is the ear analogy, which really reminds me of the humor in Les Fabliaux.

I am hoping we can talk about this book in terms of realism in class, especially in regards to the seemingly aimless travels of our two characters.