Not Forever, But For Now by Chuck Palahniuk

Published by Simon & Schuster on September 5, 2023

Chuck Palahniuk has a long history of writing dark stories about creepy characters. His novels have been described as twisted, disturbing, raunchy, and weird. Palahniuk doubles down on that tradition in Not Forever but for Now.

Otto and Cecil are brothers. Their ages are not quite clear. They think of themselves as “wee pre-male prey.” A nanny bathes Otto and they spend much of their time in a nursery. Yet they steal cars and frequently “have a go,” which in the context of the novel is a sexual reference. The age ambiguity is presumably part of the novel’s absurdist humor.

Cecil narrates the story. He uses “pre-male” as a synonym for gay. When the incestuous gay brothers did not meet his standard for masculinity, their father caved in the head of their pony with a brick “because he wanted his sons not to be always weak, twee, sentimental babies, but to face up to the grim realities of life . . . and to stop messing about with paper dolls.” Cringe-worthy yes, but with the obvious intent of ridiculing the notion that straight men can beat the gay out of their male children.

The brothers come from a family of assassins. The family has done away with Lady Di, Kurt Cobain, Elvis, and many other celebrities. The brothers particularly enjoy reenacting their grandfather’s murder of Judy Garland. Perhaps Palahniuk meant to mock the unlikely speculation that inevitably surrounds a celebrity’s death.

Otto also enjoys imitating Richard Attenborough as he narrates footage of predators stalking and devouring their prey. Taking their cue from Attenborough's dispassionate descriptions of violence in nature, the boys are natural born killers. Nannies, tutors, butlers, and other residents of and visitors to the manor house where they boys reside usually meet a gruesome end. The brothers lure predators to their home with the promise that they can “have a go” with Otto, who leads them on a chase through the woods before dispatching them (sometimes after granting their wish to have a go with him). The village is certain that the house is haunted, as well it should be. The house also seems to have hatched a monster with “extra limbs and breasts and peckers” that now roams the woods. I have no idea what to make of this fantasy element. Perhaps nonsense is its own reward.

Their grandfather is grooming the brothers for criminal enterprises other than homicide. He instruct them to steal expensive cars as part of an insurance fraud scheme. He launches an app that involves a suicide lottery and assigns the brothers to assist the suicides. Cecil's commentary suggests that the app will play a key role in plot development, but readers looking for a plot are likely to be disappointed.

To the extent that the novel has a plot, I suppose it develops in the last act. Much of the story is a family drama, complete with schemes by family members to kill other family members. Eventually the story moves to a prison and a plan to create an army of “fey, feeble pre-males with little education and no prospects,” calling upon them “to hold up chip shops and to monger whores.” This leads to a “twee” crime wave, a “pre-male revolution” that engulfs England.

Like much of Palahniuk’s work, Not Forever but for Now is primarily an exercise in describing violent and demented acts with clever prose. Perhaps Palahniuk intends to satirize people who view homosexuality as demented, but it is difficult to square that interpretation with grizzly depictions of murder and sexual encounters that are clearly nonconsensual. Perhaps he intended to satirize crime fiction, but if the reader needs to guess at the point of satire, the humor loses its punch.

Palahniuk more clearly satirizes the British empire (or its remnants), royalty, the ruling class, social media, and a prison system that supposedly “coddles” predators by housing them with an endless supply of prey. Those are easy targets, yet Palahniuk barely hits them.

The story has its funny moments. Stealing the queen’s debit card made me laugh (her PIN is 1234). She has billions in her account but can only withdraw three hundred pounds a day. Palahniuk combines the male complaint about emasculation with the female complaint about toxic masculinity to arrive at “toxic emasculation.” I laughed at that, but there are few other moments of inspired comedy.

When I was young I might have enjoyed the story for its shock value, but I am now too old to be shocked by much of anything. Palahniuk was fresh and original in Fight Club but hasn’t ever returned to that form. I can recommend Not Forever but for Now to readers who enjoy mockery for the sake of mockery, but the story lacks sufficient entertainment value to earn a full recommendation.

RECOMMENDED WITH RESERVATIONS