Hey there, folks. I just read “Not Forever, But for Now” (or, well, portions of it). It was not for me. It was a weird mix of graphic violence and surrealism, mostly plotless, and at times maddeningly repetitive. I understand that pushing boundaries is Chuck’s thing, but his grander purpose missed me this time.
However, it’s pitched as “hilarious horror satire.” The “horror” and “satire,” I totally get. But “hilarious”? Did anyone, like, get a chuckle out of this? If so, help me understand your sense of humor? I just couldn’t find the funny.
He had such a fucked up upbringing that his early work was quite refreshing in how well it walked the tightrope between physical and psychological violence, relentless torment, absurdist comedy, and profound lucidity. Almost like he mixed this perfect blend of nihilism, Buddhism, violence, anger, growth, and an almost Vonnegut-like acceptance of life’s extensive irrationality.
Now, I say early work when I’ve only read a few books of his. Nothing post early 2000’s. So, it’s not my place to speak beyond that. But, I haven’t had a desire to read any more. And, from hearing all of you and seeing interviews, it seems like his own internal conflicts have kind of overcome that original artistry that helped him channel it all effectively one to two decades ago.