As a young, college-educated Christian, I saw this book (and the movement of PK for that matter) as a last-ditch attempt to preserve patriarchal ideals popularized in the 40s/50s.

In one chapter, Dr. Tony Evans claims that the "sissification" of men in America is to blame for ALL of our problems. About these "feminized males," he writes, "Somehow, many men got the idea that the definition of manhood has to do with how many women they have conquered and the number of children they have sired." I think Dr. Evans needs to reevaluate his definition of feminine, because those attributes sound distinctly unfemale. Or does he really think that females are overtly licentious?

There are a number of purportedly "true" stories relayed in the book which in no way could possibly be true. These "promise" keepers can't even keep a promise about honesty and tell genuine stories with less zing.

All in all this book seems to be just another painful example of someone trying to make a buck off of Christianity. It happens every day, on TV, at the bookstore, and in church.

** I gave the book 2 stars because it is entertaining.

This is an awesome book. If the men in my country (the United States) would take to heart the principles in this book, a whole lot of unhappiness and misery would be eliminated.

I found this American book being used in an Australian church and brought it back to England. It works here too! Covering key issues that men need to get hold of it formed the basis for the start of men's ministry in our church. Some "Transatlantic adaptation" was necessary particularly in areas dealing with racial disharmony, but apart from this it "made the journey" very well.

Like the other major volume in the series ("Films") this is a really large, interesting book that has room for improvement. There's generally a very good (if superficial) write-up of all the world's major directors (except Mikio Naruse, Jiri Trnka, etc.) and quite a few of its minor (read: mediocre Hollywood) directors. The book gives a rundown of each director's films and a list of writings by/about each director. The problem is that the folks doing the writing aren't usually experts on who they're writing about, or they seem indifferent towards them. Why not get Ray Carney to write about John Cassavetes instead of Bill Wine? How about Tony Raynes on Edward Yang? In the end there often tends to be precious little piercing insight into the subjects of the book and so in the end "Directors" has less impact than it could. However limited it may be, "Directors" is still a wonderfully informative read because of its sheer scope, and its willingness to include current filmmakers is admirable.