I only read them a few years ago too. I think it's mostly The Game of Kings I like. The rest of the books are shoving how wonderful Lymond is down your throat a little too much. Also, he's pretty much Angsty McAngsty Pants in the later books in a way I can't stand. And you can feel its age in how the author treats the Turkish/Arab parts, and her treatment of sex and gender is problematic at its best (not because it depicts the 16th century but because she is pretty heavy-handed in revealing her own opinions).
Oh yeah I definitely agree. But for some reason, it really works for me. I don't know! It reminds me of
The Count of Monte Cristo, or at least my reaction to reading that when I was a kid. Dantes is just a little TOO good at the game, a little too tortured, has everything just a little too under control at all times, but I read that damn book unabridged and loved it. It's probably odd that I like
Count and the Lymond books so much, and that they've had such an impact on me, given that I would never write anything like that. I love an angsty romantic hero, but I would never write one.
ETA: While I think Dunnett has some huge problems with sexuality and race, I'm actually okay on her treatment of gender for the most part. The women in the Lymond books are, in my opinion, good examples of how to write strong women in historicals that don't read as too modern and don't need swords to be strong.
