According to the literary theory of Mikhail Bakhtin, novelistic prose is fundamentally social in nature. Bakhtin’s groundbreaking essay, Discourse in the Novel, proposes that the novel “is a phenomenon multiform in style and variform in speech and voice,” (1Bakhtin, 261). These different styles and different voices, found within the prose, give a novel its social significance. “The speaking person in the novel is always, to one degree or another,” Bakhtin contends, “an ideologue, and his words are always ideologemes. A particular language in a novel is always a particular way of viewing the world,” (1Bakhtin, 325). Bakhtin’s concept of the novel, then, becomes the ideal forum in which these various ideologemes can engage in active discourse with one another. If this social function is the defining characteristic of a successful novel, though, then where do we find ourselves with a work such as Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea? Sartre’s existential novel is, by its very nature, utterly insular and completely subjective. From the style employed to the idea-hero portrayed, Nausea comes across as a decidedly anti-social narrative. We would be remiss in excluding the piece from Bakhtin’s classification of the novel, though. In fact, the way in which Sartre’s novel handles both its social heteroglossia and its various individual voices proves to be quite significant (1Bakhtin, 264). Ultimately, though, for a piece as seemingly self-indulgent as Nausea, a Bakhtinian reading may create more questions than it does answers.