Absurdity and Nihilism Theme Analysis

The Idiot contains an extensive depiction of nihilism, a philosophical movement that became popular in Russia in the 1860s. Nihilists were heavily critical of the existing structures, laws, and norms, which they held were arbitrary and wrong. They asserted that existence was fundamentally meaningless. The novel shows how the difficulty and absurdity of life might indeed compel someone to embrace a nihilistic worldview. However, through the character of Prince Myshkin, it ultimately takes a stand against nihilism, which it suggests is a misguided reaction to pain and absurdity.

In the novel, nihilism is mainly explored through the small group of young people who explicitly align themselves with the movement, including Ippolit, Doktorenko, and Burdovsky. Each character has different reasons for embracing nihilism, and perhaps the most sympathetic of these is Ippolit’s story. At only 17, Ippolit is very ill from consumption (tuberculosis) and has been told that he will die very soon. In despair at the injustice and absurdity of having his life cut so short, Ippolit adopts a nihilist worldview. He decides to commit suicide, explaining, “Nature has so greatly limited my activity by her three-week sentence that suicide may be the only thing I still have time to begin and end of my own will.” It is easy to feel sympathy for Ippolit and to understand why the dire circumstances of his life might lead him to conclude that existence itself is illogical and meaningless. However, the way he enacts his beliefs ends up painting nihilism as a somewhat foolish and childish reaction to the horrors of the world. This is conveyed most emphatically by Ippolit’s philosophical treatise, “A Necessary Explanation,” which he reads before a large audience of party guests. While the essay is meant to be dramatic (as immediately indicated by the epigraph, “Après moi le deluge…” / “After me the flood”), it actually just leaves everyone feeling bored. Most of the audience is not convinced that Ippolit actually intends to commit suicide. General Ivolgin, for example, comments, “He won’t shoot himself; it’s a boyish prank.” When Ippolit’s attempt fails, he is left deeply embarrassed, trying to assure everyone that he really did mean to kill himself. Ippolit’s boring essay and failed suicide attempt are metaphors for the general failures of nihilism. Although not entirely misguided, nihilism reacts to insightful observations about the world in an unhelpful and childish manner (as conveyed by Ivolgin’s phrase “boyish prank”). Perhaps the most important criticism the book makes of Ippolit’s form of nihilism is the fact that it is fundamentally selfish. Ippolit’s worldview and actions remain focused on himself—even if that means killing himself.

Although they are not necessarily recognized as nihilists, some of the female characters in the novel also react to the absurdity of life by embracing the philosophy. Mrs. Epanchin expresses concern about the prospect of her daughters “growing up into nihilists,” and wonders if Alexandra Ivanovna is a nihilist or “simply a fool.” Mrs. Epanchin’s words highlight the contradictory way in which nihilism is constructed in the minds of the characters—particularly older adults. On one hand, Mrs. Epanchin implies that nihilism is basically a form of foolishness, and thus assumedly shouldn’t be taken too seriously. On the other hand, she is very worried about the prospect of her daughters embracing nihilism, showing that the movement may be more powerful than many characters want to admit. Similarly, although she does not explicitly identify with it, Nastasya arguably behaves in the most stridently nihilistic way in the book. Reacting to the bleak absurdity of being orphaned as a child, sexually abused by her guardian, and put at the mercy of suitors who do not care about her, Nastasya loses all respect for social convention. Her rebellious behavior could certainly be read as an example of nihilism in action. However, because she is a woman, she is not viewed as a nihilist in the traditional sense. Moreover, her actions have only a very limited impact on the world around her, beyond causing scandal.

The obvious contrast here is the behavior of Myshkin. Like Ippolit, Myshkin is sensitive to the absurdity and injustice of the world and deeply affected by it. However, rather than turning to nihilism, Myshkin’s reaction is to be as kind, merciful, and generous as possible to his fellow human beings. In this sense, it is less important whether Myshkin’s Christian worldview or a nihilist worldview is actually correct. What matters is that the prince has a positively transformative impact on the world, whereas the nihilists in the novel do not manage to change the absurd nature of life that they are rebelling against, and are instead dismissed as ridiculous.