The at-least-three novels that were all "about" Temple Gault (birth name, srsly) showed an obvious progression, or is it digression when it gets worse? The problem was less that I have a dozen of those books, it's that the two I bought outside the series are now spoiled to me. I had really liked Hornet's Net and thought it smart and witty and showing a different type of m/f relationship, so I ran to get the follow up - then never read it. NOW I see how Cornwell went from her first novels (which I consider standard, most consider best, critics consider that start of something exceptional which I still try to figure out) to the disjointed jump-scene multi-plot style of the Andy series. I still do not want to join the many critics who hated these off-side novels, I want to still think they are more Cornwell and really good, but having just finished Scarpetta 7 I still cannot say if Cornwell is having a piss, attempting the most subtle subtext of all time, or just truly bad. I had accredited odd similes to an original imagination and the complete lack of any showing to a tight pov where the heroine keeps huge facts from us as well as the others but - no, the Scarpetta series really is so utterly bad that I should drop that hope. Which means I misunderstood Hornet's Net after all?
I've neglected to write reviews, which I regret, but I wanted to wait and see how an overview would shape my perception. As usual (with books that are fairly popular) I can't help wonder about and react to critiques I've read. The blurb recommendations make no sense. There is nothing extraordinary and there is no way to claim each book as as good. The cover work is great, the titles raise interest - and there's the problem. As said before, Body Farm and Potters Field are actually false advertising. There is nothing harrowing, since we are never with the victims or the killers. There is no psychology, but then there can be all types of crime novels and Cornwell's are procedurals - she has Wesley for a bit of psychology/profiling, but Scarpetta's job is medical.
If we see this series as procedurals, we can take it like any of a number of modern crime shows on TV, most of which I cannot watch because they are so boring, now having lots and lots of extreme gore but not actually that much more plot than stuffy oldies. Scarpetta could be a TV show, but AFAIK only her rival Bones has one. These shows generally have the same small amounts of private moments, jokes and romance decorating the crime plots as Cornwell has in her novels, BUT novels are a lot longer than a 40 min show, and having trawled through 7 x atleast 370 pages I have to concede that it's way too little - and nothing progresses. As mentioned I was initially unsure if significant events happening between the novels was meant to be a sort of smart trick, but no, -i- must must must accept it just isn't, just like her buying a new house, buying a new car, in every book isn't, because they never feel different, there is never a sense of surrounding or private life, and to have her put out a cookbook is ridiculous for that matter as well.
The cars should matter more simply because she spends most of the time in every book inside one. She still seems to do nothing but travel, back and forth, take planes a few times a day, spend millions on journeys one would expect to be made by another or instead her phoning the other person. Where in the first six books the last of each journey led her to Key West or Miami or some other warm ocean site where she has a 4 hour holiday and gets vital info from some recluse no police contacted, she seems to have abandoned that as well now. While still making an annoying fuss about mynieceLucy, which gets more grating the older this FBI agent becomes, Scarpetta then singlehandedly kills the murderer. When she did in Gault I actually laughed, not because I'm a convert to gore but because it was so ridiculous - that guy was not a monster, he was the least sadistic of serial killers I ever heard about, but that's mainly because she never found a reason for him to do anything, let alone a real signature or grah anything.
But what Gault had done to his sister ages ago was more in the line of true evil - something Cornwell believes in, sadly with more lauding of church (and army; and police). Again one could say she is not setting out to write psychologically, it should be ok to give no reasons and motives for bad men becoming murderers, but the tiny glimpses were Cornwell was good was precisely when she made apt observations. To hide behind Scarpetta, to claim that the heroine is misunderstood because she hides her pain, that falls flat after so many books. To repeat someone is a monster and that a body had been dumped somewhere does not make it any more harrowing - to have a body slightly mutilated after death simply isn't monstrous or shocking, and one can't feel upset if one never knew anything of the victims or how their loss destroyed others lives. Scarpetta saying that in the past she had gotten hives does neither make her more sympathetic to me nor more convincing - I never thought her cold, but the books don't describe tragedies, aren't even evoking any emotion.
When one has to point at someone like Elizabeth George, who also got very very bad, and say that that's still some proper writing, it's sad. But when Cornwell decided not to focus on the victims, not to focus on the criminals, she had to focus on the detectives. And to have those just be told about in increasingly unconvincing snippets does not turn a series of descriptions of laboratories from a guide or hand-book into a novel.