Faithful
Publication Information co-written with Stewart O'Nan 2004 Scribner 384 pages

A Nonfiction Critique

Faithful isn't really a Stephen King book. It says so right there on the cover: by Stewart O'Nan with Stephen King. And O'Nan - who once risked the ire of his co-author with his book Dear Stephen King (later renamed The Speed Queen) - really does dominate this book. He details the 2004 Red Sox season, including the spectacular and unexpected World Series win, with the eye and the pen of a true fan. King pops up every so often (in bold print to distinguish his words from O'Nan's) with further insight or commentary.

With that in mind, Faithful may not be the most accessible Stephen King book. For those not interested in sports or sports writing, Faithful can be a slog of insider jargon and statistics. Even King's celebrated pieces like the New Yorker narrative essay "Head Down" (later republished in Nightmares & Dreamscapes) can seem distancing to those readers who aren't baseball fanatics.

However, King's discussions about how baseball made him feel are fantastically enjoyable. When he is focusing on his own reactions rather than the particulars of the game, the emotional resonance one can glean from his best writing shines through the talk of trades and plays. It's fascinating, for once, to witness Stephen King being a fan, rather than the object of fan devotion. Most fun are the interspersed email conversations between King and O'Nan: with their sense of immediacy, jovial nature, and pop-culture references (these guys can't stop riffing on Napoleon Dynamite), it doesn't matter what subject they discuss. Here we see two fans, sitting around, talking; one can't help but feel a little voyeuristic thrill with each glimpse into those conversations.

Interestingly, when King focuses on baseball in his fiction - notably in Needful Things, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and the later Blockade Billy - he remains as accessible to non-fans as in his other works. More, his two other forays into book-length non-fiction, Danse Macabre and On Writing, also feel approachable for those not necessarily interested in the recent history of the horror genre, or the mechanics of fiction writing. There seems to be something particular about the nature of King's non-fiction sports writing that seems to alienate those not on his particular wavelength.

This doesn't seem to be King's fault. In the case of Faithful, Stuart O'Nan - an accomplished fiction writer - is also blameless. If Faithful doesn't work for readers, it is likely due to the fact that this simply isn't the book for them. Non-baseball fans drawn to Faithful by the power of King's name alone may be disappointed in the nature of the book, which may confound and frustrate. Conversely, baseball fanatics who are unfamiliar with either King's or O'Nan's writing will likely find the book compelling, an accessible way in to the larger world of these authors' writing.

2004 Review

Here’s the thing: Faithful isn’t really a Stephen King book. It says so right there on the cover: by Stewart O’Nan with Stephen King. And O’Nan – he who once risked the ire of his co-author with his book Dear Stephen King (later renamed The Speed Queen) – really does dominate this book. He details the 2004 Red Sox season with the eye and the pen of a true fan, with King popping up every so often (in bold print to distinguish his words from O’Nan’s) with further insight or commentary.

Now, here’s true confession time: I am not a baseball fan. If I were, I’d probably love the Red Sox. I’m a Boston boy, born and bred, and while I enjoy the atmosphere of the Red Sox, I have no use for the ins and outs of baseball. I’ve watched a few games, sure, and I was pleased when they won the World Series … but that’s all it really amounts to. In general, sports aren’t my thing (although, truth be told, if King were to write a book about the Bruins, I’d be a lot more interested.)

Okay, some more confession: I love Stephen King’s writing. You probably already gleaned that. I love his fiction, his poetry, his nonfiction (from his forewords and afterwords to his full-length books Danse Macabre and On Writing), even his screenplays. But I don’t like his sports writing at all.

I don’t think he’s the problem here. King obviously loves baseball, and it’s actually quite keen to see King being a fan rather than the object of fandom. The problem is with me. I just plain dislike baseball, and couldn’t care less about the particulars of games or rules or trades or anything. I didn’t much care for King’s celebrated nonfiction tale for The New Yorker, “Head Down” (later collected in Nightmares and Dreamscapes), and to be honest, I didn’t much care for Faithful.

Let me stress that this is not King’s fault. It’s not O’Nan’s fault either, mostly because I … well, I um… I didn’t read the O’Nan parts. I tried, I swear, but by page three it was either give up entirely or give up on O’Nan. (I want to emphasize that O’Nan isn’t a bad writer, not in the least; it’s just that I consider myself a gigantic Stephen King fan, and if King’s writing about baseball doesn’t work for me, you can imagine what it’s like with someone who isn’t King.) I chose the latter. Because I tend to be a completist, I couldn’t just have the book on my shelf, staring at me, completely unread. So I skipped O’Nan, and just read the King parts.

My thoughts: I very much enjoyed King’s discussions about how baseball made him feel. When he was focusing on his own reactions rather than the particulars of the game, the emotional resonance one can glean from his best writing shone through, bright and powerful. I also quite liked the interspersed email conversations he and O’Nan partook in: with their sense of immediacy, jovial nature, and pop-culture references (these guys couldn’t stop riffing on Napoleon Dynamite), it didn’t matter what subject they were discussion. Here were two fans, sitting around, talking, and I got a little voyeuristic thrill with each glimpse into those conversations.

I’m probably the wrong guy to be reviewing this book, but my love of Stephen King eclipses my dislike of baseball; I’m compelled to read what he writes and then comment on what I read. (I wonder if King fans not interested in the mechanics of writing had this problem with On Writing.) You’d think, being a Boston guy and one of the biggest Stephen King fans I’ve encountered, this book would be a godsend for me. It continually frustrated me that I didn’t like baseball more, which leads me to believe that, for a baseball fan (especially one who digs King), this book is perfect.

My Stephen King baseball book will remain The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, a fiction piece that wove baseball into the narrative and wasn’t distracting about it. In other words, the fan-love came through without all the details. For me, I’m glad I (mostly) read it so I can say I read it, and I’m glad it exists for those fans for whom it will work better.

NEWS & NOTES