That said, I ask again… why just 3 stars from me? To me, a 3 star book is one that is a good read, has interesting parts, has not so interesting parts, doesn’t stand out from the rest of its genre/series/author/type, has no egregious errors, and leaves me feeling okay but not thirsting to read a sequel or another book by the author. Is it an honest opinion of a standalone book? An opportunity to highlight what you liked about it so others might read it? A chance to just complain because you prefer to focus on the negatives? A comparison of it to other books in its genre? A focus on its place within the entire series? A commentary on how well the author conveys something (a) new, (b) different, (c) above standard, (d) comforting, (e) I could go on forever… I often see other people’s reviews and wonder… what were they thinking? do they just like to be mean? Are they so easily contented they give high ratings because they love the author? I’m not judging anyone at all, I’m merely highlighting different ways of writing a review. So… why just 3 stars? I think the question for this book and my opening paragraph really goes back to the definition of a book review. That’s the kind of character I love to experience. With Flesh and Blood, the 22nd of ~25, she continues building and developing a set of characters I often feel are so real, they’re sitting in my living room or bedroom as I’m reading… being their usual sarcastic and bitchy selves… poking a stick in my direction to do more with my life… urging me to push the boundaries. After 22 books, I’m unable to put them down… and knowing what it’s like to write a series, I’m in awe of Patricia Cornwell’s talent. The Kay Scarpetta series clearly shows the work of a brilliant imagination, clever plotter, intelligent and savvy mind who understands people, and intense soul.

Flesh and blood scarpetta