Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.78 AVERAGE
2.78 AVERAGE
dark
mysterious
tense
dark
fast-paced
Not Forever…not for me. I generally love dark comedy but this one didn’t do it for me. I received a free copy of this book through the Simon Books Buddy program, and I tried to like it, I really did.
If I never read the phrase “have it off” again in my life, it will be too soon.
If I never read the phrase “have it off” again in my life, it will be too soon.
This is an interesting one from Palahniuk. While sticking with the usual gory truth he’s famous for, the writing seemed stylized after a Vonnegut narrative.
The story itself follows the same absurdity that is ever-present in the world of Palahniuk’s characters. Those wretched, hateful, grey characters that we always hate; the ones we sympathize with; and those we end up loving. The brothers Otto and Cecil fit the bill.
While reading, the one thing I kept going back to is “this almost reads **too much** like shock-jock writing. It’s crass and abrasive—which is completely normal and expected, often ingrained in my psyche to be pulled out conversationally at a later date. *”did you know…?”*
My frustration I found was that the majority of the story seemed to rely on previous tales and accounts from the author. Seemingly pulling—at least interpreted that way—from parts of Fight Club, Rant, Beautiful You, Haunted, Survivor. It makes the reader, if a veteran Palahniuk fan, think. Are all of these characters tied to the same world? First time readers, may just be confused.
The calls to previous stories in Palahniuk’s Not Forever, But For Now, seem to be buried intricately into paragraphs.
I do feel that the most excitement of this story is found towards the last quarter of the book; while the other three quarters slowly build tension in that usual, Palahniuk way.
I believe this could be labeled a “slow burn.” Slow to start and gradually warms you up until you’re sweating and anxious.
The story itself follows the same absurdity that is ever-present in the world of Palahniuk’s characters. Those wretched, hateful, grey characters that we always hate; the ones we sympathize with; and those we end up loving. The brothers Otto and Cecil fit the bill.
While reading, the one thing I kept going back to is “this almost reads **too much** like shock-jock writing. It’s crass and abrasive—which is completely normal and expected, often ingrained in my psyche to be pulled out conversationally at a later date. *”did you know…?”*
My frustration I found was that the majority of the story seemed to rely on previous tales and accounts from the author. Seemingly pulling—at least interpreted that way—from parts of Fight Club, Rant, Beautiful You, Haunted, Survivor. It makes the reader, if a veteran Palahniuk fan, think. Are all of these characters tied to the same world? First time readers, may just be confused.
The calls to previous stories in Palahniuk’s Not Forever, But For Now, seem to be buried intricately into paragraphs.
I do feel that the most excitement of this story is found towards the last quarter of the book; while the other three quarters slowly build tension in that usual, Palahniuk way.
I believe this could be labeled a “slow burn.” Slow to start and gradually warms you up until you’re sweating and anxious.
challenging
dark
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
“Much later, Otto would tell me it felt thrilling: to be both pitied and desired.” (p. 144)
Where to even begin with this book?
For starters, I really think this is one of the rare exceptions to the “going in blind” rule of reading. Your mileage, at least in my opinion, will VASTLY depend on whether you read the author’s note before or after you actually read the book. I was in the former category, and having Palahniuk’s intentions at the back of my mind as I read made for a significantly better experience than I think most other people had on first read. Even among the rare people who do like NFBFN, many say something to the effect of “the author’s note completely changed my view of the story”. I’m 50/50 on this choice. On the one hand, I do think the author’s note would have been equally as effective as a preface -- but on the other, for the people this book is really for, the author’s note wasn’t needed.
Because this book is agonizing to read if you’re one of those people, in the best way possible.
With no exaggeration, this book scraped me absolutely raw. It held up a mirror to some of my most traumatic experiences -- growing up in the shadow of addiction, being primed into addiction as a result, CSA and hypersexuality, the trauma of queer identity -- in a way that was painful when it wanted to be and comforting when it needed to be. The recurring theme of desire, what we want versus what we need, the boundaries between pain and pleasure, beauty and destruction... I’m genuinely so disappointed that NFBFN consistently ranks so low in ratings and lists of Palahniuk’s best books, even among Palahniuk’s most avid fans.
I don’t say that to be a contrarian, because I definitely do understand why this book isn’t for everyone. And don’t get me wrong; the book absolutely has its flaws. Not least of which is Palahniuk’s old standby of “disaffected male uprising” that I feel lost its impact several books ago. I also think the allegory becomes a little murky at points, particularly with the character of Otto; I never could grasp during my initial read whether he was being written as a metaphor for substances themselves, a “hopeless” addict who has gone past the point of “saving”, or a commentary on the heirs of pharmaceutical empires . Maybe it’s all three at once, maybe it’s none of them. Maybe this choice was entirely intentional, maybe I missed something. But Otto, in my opinion, rides right up against the line between “up to interpretation” and “vague to the point of confusion”. I’m also... extremely iffy on real public figures being used as characters in fiction (especially those like Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland, who still can’t catch a break from public scrutiny even decades after death) but that’s more of a personal preference.
Even through its many flaws, I really, honestly can’t say I disliked this book. I truly hope more people who reached the author’s note at the end would take Palahniuk’s advice and give it a second read. Because for the people it needs to reach, if you can stomach the long list of content warnings, it’s absolutely worth it.
dark
emotional
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
funny
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes