Instapundit links to a pretty worthless piece by Dave Weigel in the LA Times about "right-wing dystopian fiction"; Weigel's beef is mainly with Robert Ferrigno's Prayers for the Assassin (which I'm currently reading) and Orson Scott Card's Empire, which jamestrainor also thought was lame. Reynolds points out that believability has not previously been the standard for this genre (and specifically points out the uber-lame The Handmaid's Tale), which is very true. Most dystopias are polemics of one sort or another, and most polemics tend to suck because it's hard to write them without having all your characters constantly speechifying all over the plot. (Devotees of Ayn Rand apparently consider this a feature of her work, not a defect, but we've discussed that cult earlier.) I'm not done with Ferrigno's novel, but he does posit a not totally unreasonable future in which cultural leaders serve as the opening wedge for massive conversions to Islam, especially after Mecca, New York and Washington are nuked by what appears to be a Mossad team. You can buy the premise or not, and Weigel apparently doesn't; so much the worse for his enjoyment of the book.
However, criticizing the books for being the literary expression of "right wing" politics is the kind of analytic crudity one has come to expect from the "pox on both your houses" crowd at Reason lately. It seems appropriate that it's seeing print in the LA Times, a newspaper that has manged to match its New York namesake in the poor quality of its journalism, if not in the faded star quality of its journalists.