????書(shū)中的建議看起來(lái)很明智。關(guān)于報(bào)復(fù)：“怒火中燒、痛不欲生的時(shí)候，把丈夫珍藏的佳釀倒進(jìn)馬桶……可能看起來(lái)似乎有點(diǎn)效果，但是……法官會(huì)懷疑這是一種報(bào)復(fù)性行為，因此昂首保持體面的做法要好得多。”

????關(guān)于法律文件：“法律信函的初衷就是為了嚇唬人，因此，如果配偶的律師來(lái)信看起來(lái)具有威脅性，也不要驚慌……讓你的律師來(lái)處理這些法律術(shù)語(yǔ)。花錢(qián)請(qǐng)他們就是干這個(gè)的。”

????關(guān)于讓孩子遠(yuǎn)離離婚大戰(zhàn)：“不要拿孩子當(dāng)中間人。孩子并不是有效的信使，反而會(huì)造成誤解。這樣做也會(huì)帶給孩子一種混亂的情緒，他們無(wú)法消化接受。”

????關(guān)于分割個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)：“訂婚戒指是男方以結(jié)婚為前提送給女方的禮物；既然結(jié)婚這一前提已經(jīng)達(dá)成，即使婚姻破裂，女方仍有權(quán)保有訂婚戒指。如果這枚戒指是男方珍貴的家傳寶，是否將戒指歸還男方完全由女方做主。”

????關(guān)于身為父母的責(zé)任：“不要讓雙方的角色極端化。如果一方完全負(fù)責(zé)孩子的日常生活（洗衣、購(gòu)物、上學(xué)、家庭作業(yè)），而另一方每到周末就帶孩子吃大餐、出去玩，讓孩子沉浸在溺愛(ài)之中……那么孩子就會(huì)在不滿(mǎn)和過(guò)度刺激之間不停轉(zhuǎn)換，最終變得非常不開(kāi)心……受壓迫的一方家長(zhǎng)自然也會(huì)心生怨恨……記住，離異父母的新生活絕不是要在孩子心目中詆毀對(duì)方的形象，而是保證孩子生活穩(wěn)定、安全和滿(mǎn)足。

????雖然這本書(shū)主要針對(duì)英國(guó)讀者，具體的法律流程也是建立在英國(guó)法律條款的基礎(chǔ)之上，但是書(shū)中的建議并不局限于法律范疇。

????這本書(shū)的風(fēng)格偏英式，也更貼近英國(guó)文化，在觸及到核心的禮儀問(wèn)題時(shí)，可能會(huì)令美國(guó)讀者感到為難。譬如，父母都已經(jīng)再婚的情況下，在孩子的婚禮請(qǐng)柬中如何措辭（“約翰?羅賓遜先生和埃德加?弗西斯夫人恭請(qǐng)您參加小女卡羅琳的婚禮。”）有些美國(guó)人面對(duì)這種禮節(jié)會(huì)不屑一顧，有些人則會(huì)虔誠(chéng)地記在心里，而許多人可能兩種心理兼而有之。大多數(shù)美國(guó)人可能會(huì)為這樣的段落感到困惑不已：“貴族夫人（即公爵夫人、侯爵夫人、伯爵夫人、子爵夫人或男爵夫人）離婚后，一般規(guī)則是她把自己的名字放在頭銜前面，例如，瑪麗，漢普郡公爵夫人。”

????我不會(huì)向羅恩?佩雷爾曼（露華濃化妝品公司的掌門(mén)人，曾經(jīng)多次離婚-——譯注）推薦這本書(shū)，但會(huì)推薦給第一次離婚并嘗試保護(hù)孩子利益的人。這本書(shū)對(duì)于他們來(lái)說(shuō)非常有用、令人寬慰，甚至可以說(shuō)是睿智。

????譯者：qian

????The recommendations seem sensible. On retribution: "Throwing your husband's vintage wine collection down the loo . . . might seem like a therapeutic gesture when you're in the throes of rage and despair, but . . . judges will take a dim view of vindictive behaviour, so it's far better to hold your head up high and retain the civilized high ground."

????On being served with papers: "Legal letters are designed to be threatening, so don't get into a panic if letters from your spouse's lawyers seem overbearing. . . . Leave [your own lawyers] to deal with the legal jargon. That's what you're paying for."

????On keeping children clear of the battle zone: "Never use children as go-betweens. Children are not effective messengers and misunderstandings will ensue. You may also be revealing a range of anarchic emotions to your children which they are unable to assimilate."

????On divvying up personal property: "The engagement ring is an outright gift given to the woman on the condition of marriage, and having met that condition, she is entitled to keep it even after the marriage's dissolution. If the ring is a precious heirloom, handed down on the paternal side, returning it is entirely at the woman's discretion."

????On parental responsibilities: "Don't allow roles to become polarised. If one parent is entirely responsible for the mundanities of everyday life (laundry, shopping, school, homework) and the other sweeps the children off their feet every weekend for a round of treats, outings and parental indulgence . . . the children will alternate between dissatisfaction and overstimulation, and eventually will become very unhappy . . . . The downtrodden parent will be understandably resentful. . . . Remember, your new life as divorced parents is really not about scoring points off each other, but ensuring that your children's life is stable, secure, and contented."

????Though the book is primarily directed to the British reader, and the specific legal process described is the English one, the advice usually transcends jurisdiction.

????The book's British tone and tilt might make American readers most uncomfortable when it gets down to the hard-core etiquette stuff—like how to word the children's wedding invitations when the parents have remarried. ("Mr. John Robinson and Mrs. Edgar Forsythe request the pleasure of your company at the marriage of their daughter Caroline.") Some Americans will roll their eyes at such formalities while others will memorize them religiously, and many will do both. Most will be simply bewildered by passages like this one: "When a peeress (i.e. a duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess or baroness) obtains a divorce, the general rule is that she places her forename before her title, for example, Mary, Duchess of Hampshire."

????I wouldn't recommend this book to Ron Perelman, but for pragmatic decouplers navigating divorce for the first time and trying to keep the interests of their children paramount, it could prove useful, comforting, and even wise.