There are several posts by Matt Yglesias that analyse the economy of the universe of George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. This practice should be encouraged unquestioningly.

The George RR Martin series is one of the greatest pieces of literature from our era. Avant garde snobbery it can happily reject - the great works of past centuries were written for popular consumption. Naturally, what I am quickest to appreciate is the detail and realism of the fictional world. But the whole format of the series seems designed most of all to demonstrate the political economy of Martin's world. Here are parables galore for Yglesias et al. to write and debate about. Contrary to most fiction, it is possible to do this with lots of sophistication. Or maybe this is just what I first read into, and why it appeals to me in particular.

The Wire, Breaking Bad and other examples from our present television golden age are similar, The Wire most so. Like A Song of Ice and Fire its purpose is to depict a fictional universe, but one that is true to economic, political and social reality. Welcome to the kingdom of Baltimore! Watch as the city's princes vies with each other for power, and send their henchmen to enforce the subjugation of  marcher lords on the kingdom's borders. The Wire is the imperial periphery of Robinson and Gallagher.

I'm probably not reading enough of the right classical literature, if it seems so refreshing to find fiction that takes political and economic themes seriously. Off the top of my head, The Tempest and Coriolanus are badly lacking. Both plays revolve around individual emotions and decisions: mercy against old enemies; pride and honour between one man and an array of what looks like a serious political drama, but is really just one long foil.

There must be too many people in positions of cultural power (leftist literature students, one must presume) whose first thought is 'how can I humanise history?' (politics/economics if they give the last any thought at all). Well the greatest recent literature is not so patronising.

P.S. I'm reading V by Thomas Pynchon at the moment. If there's anything that might satisfy my tastes...

Update: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284722645443124.htm 
I disagree with Tabarrok: every film and TV series (especially Breaking Bad) that portrays clime in any vaguely positive light is a coded celebration of entrepreneurship and creative destruction. Usually it still retains its ruthlessly individualistic window though. The Wire stands out as an exception. I don't even think it manages to portray capitalism pessimistically. Economics is neutral - Tabarrok should maybe know better.

Update 2: And sticking with the marginal revolutionaries, Tyler Cowen has written an essay formalisitn this theme. http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/Model.pdf. Cowen: fiction presents verbal economic models, to a reader inclined to read into them as such. Behavioural economics and signaling  are economic concepts that apply to individuals. My original post is probably more me preferring macro to micro.

The best part of Cowen's essay is when he passes on an observation from Tabarrok in the conclusion:

"... contemporary computer games break down the distinction between novels and models altogether. If the game has enough sophistication, and is sufficiently entertaining or inspiring, the model becomes like a novel as well. Game characters are "produced by" mathematical equations and programs, as we might find in an economic model. Nonetheless the resulting model has enough story-like properties to make it both a model and novel at once."