Just to add a counterpoint here, I picked up The Pyrates (on the theory I loved Flashman) - and really didn’t like it. Can’t even put my finger on why, it just didn’t work for me and I found it a chore to read.
I read Othello once: that Iago is a bit of a rotter isn’t he ? A real homewrecker. The Moor was kinda dumb, but Desdemona was a good girl.
Conversely, I am one of the 10 people alive who has read William De Morgan, the Victorian decorative tile designer, and the eponymous hero of Joseph Vance also started off around the 1850s as a humble market gardener and family man, and oddly enough he’s a real sweetheart.
You Never Can Tell.
Robinson Crusoe can be a bit prosy; but Jurgen thinks about sex now and again; and some of Dashiel Hammett’s characters are not all little gentlemen.
I expected more of Fraser’s Flashman-style humor, and it wasn’t there. It wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t as memorable.
I know why I didn’t like Mr. American, despite his usual period details - it just didn’t have a plot or development of the protagonist’s back story. I haven’t read Quartered Way Out Here either.
On further thought: The *Flashman *books were all set in real history, with realistic characters and motivations, and you can think of them as being factual without much stretching. The Pyrates was merely a pastiche of bad novels and movies.
I disagree. For me the point is that despite his amorality, he is almost harmless compared to the honourable good true believers in queen and empire etc.
To me, the three most memorable Frasers:
(1) Flashman;
(2) Quartered Safe out Here;
(3) The McAuslan Stories.
What is interesting is how different in tone they are. Flashman - the black humour and cynicism, combined with meticulous period detail; Quartered Safe - well, it’s an autobiography, but it is very clear young Fraser was not a young Flashman himself 
- it’s a moving account of his adventures; and McAuslan - a light hearted look at his postwar service, with the humor completely different than in Flashman - generally very much lighter in tone (though some parts are quite moving as well).
I don’t think his more ‘serious’ dramas - Black Ajax, Mr. American - are in the same league. They are good, don’t get me wrong, but not as memorable as these three. The Pyrates is light hearted fluff, a sort of love letter to movie serials, and again, doesn’t hit the sweet spot for me.
Ditto. I didn’t strongly dislike The Pyrates and managed to finish it, but it was just too self-consciously parodic and wisecracky for me.
Same sort of thing that I find hard to take (although I tolerate it better) in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels—the plots and action are loads of fun but the narration suggests rimshots and a laugh track. Even though the jokes are generally good, they’re too strongly pointed.
Flashman’s narration is also pretty wisecracky but it works better as a foil for all the Victorian earnestness that surrounds him. Plus the plots are more grounded and realistic than that of The Pyrates, so there’s less of the “what ho chaps, what a madcap romp we’re having!” feeling.
I don’t recall if I read The Pyrates. Is there a scene where the protagonist wonders how to escape, and another prisoner suggests, “Well, you can wait for an earthquake, or…” and suggests several other literary escapes?
The Discworld only exists as a background for puns. The world doesn’t have a real “existence” of its own. It lacks plausibility. It’s a delight; I’ve only read three of the books, but I loved 'em. But it was a little like Alice in Wonderland: the world couldn’t possibly exist, except as a contrivance to point up the jokes.
Fritz Leiber fell a little into that trap in later Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser stories: his world ceased being “a world” and took on more and more of the properties of a “parody setting.” In contrast, the Hyborian or Barsoom settings were intended to be self-sufficient and “real” in their own context.
I beg to differ, but will refrain from derailing this thread with the extremely long list of reasons why. 
I agree, especially about the Flashman as a counterpoint to the other Victorians aspect of it - his Blackadder-like conniving works really well in that context. I enjoy a wacky madcomp romp story, but I basically though The Pyrates was trying too hard.
I’ve recommended Flashman to a few people now and none who tried it liked it enough to continue the series. A couple times people who do like the series have mentioned that Flashman and the Redskins was their favorite. It’s midway through the books so Flashy should be less horrible, although I remember one prime example of bad behavior.
The Flashman books are great. I’ve known a lot of Brits who said they learned about their 19th-century history through them too, after having blown off History in school.
His nonfiction Quartered Safe Out Here, detailing the author’s personal experiences as a soldier in Burma during WWII, is not to be missed either.
It is directly connected with another American West story, separated by several years.
I remember trying to read it and not liking it. Unfortunately I don’t remember why. Either I didn’t like the character or I didn’t think it was funny would be my guess.
I’m an addict of the Flashman series now, but I did feel a bit queasy midway through the first one. The use of "n*****’ didn’t bother me so much (particularly as it isn’t being used about black people), but Flashman does attempt to rape his father’s girlfriend and does actually rape an Afghan dancing girl later on (for which he comes close to being castrated later on). I think the book and the series would have been better off without it, as it makes it hard for me to identify with him.
The book does get a lot better from there, though, and the later books are even better. My personal favourites are Flashman and the Mountain of Light and Flashman and the Great Game, both set in India. The key is you’re not supposed to take him as a hero, or particularly identify with him. He’s an antihero. Fraser’s a genius at dramatizing some of the most interesting episodes in history (in the first book I mentioned, for example, the First Anglo-Sikh war).
One interesting thing about the first Flashman book is that Fraser (surprisingly for an enthusiast of the British Empire) actually makes the Afghans somewhat more sympathetic than they deserve, and the British colonialists less so. I was reading William (?) Dalrymple’s recent popular book on the Anglo-Afghan war on a plane ride recently, and I came away from it with a much more negative opinion of the Afghan side in that conflict, and of Akbar Khan in particular, than I had on reading Flashman.
I mean, not really. He’s intended to be a bad guy by the standards of his time, too. E.g. the scene towards the end of the first book when he and his servant Hudson escape from an Afghan prison, taking his revengeful former rape victim (who had tried to have him castrated), he wants to beat the living daylights out of her, and Hudson stops him telling him that gentlemen don’t beat women. He also participates in the (illegal) slave trade in a later book, for which he could have gotten into a lot of trouble.
Indeed. If it is the same thing I am thinking of, it’s the worst think he ever did by far - much worse than the rape in the first book, by orders of magnitude!
[spoiler]The time he decided to abandon his then wife who was the madam of a brothel, and convinced his mistress (one of the prostitutes) to go with him - only to sell her into sex slavery to make a handy pile of cash to fund his further travels. Thus ensuring she, who was in love with him and went along with him willingly, would get years of rape and abuse - just because he’d rather have a bit of cash than her company.
She survives and tries to take an elaborate revenge on him years later, using his own son (as it turns out, she was pregnant by him when he sold her). [/spoiler]
Sgt. Hudson was a guy who bought into the ‘gentlemanly ethos’ (although he was from the ‘lower orders’ himself). Flashman notes that, if Hudson - who actually had been heroic - survived, he’d never have been lionized as a hero like Flashman was - he was the wrong social class.
It is true that the Brits outlawed the slave trade. Though once again, Flashman notes that the Brits tolerated conditions for the poor that a Virginia planter would have balked at for his actual slaves.
Flashman’s “thing” is that, bully and coward though he undoubtedly was (and his contemporaries would have totally disapproved had they known), he often makes the case that his actions (while deplorable) are in effect no worse than his more moral contemporaries.
He does occasionally suffer for his actions. After being an overseer, he get sold into slavery himself.