I hate Badiou. But I'm also fascinated by him. A couple of years ago I went through most of his major works, and even though I finished the reading feeling like I never needed to think about him again, I have. But mostly in a negative way. Am I talking in circles? Very well then, I talk in circles. Because that's the effect Badiou has on me.
Even though he's against state and party, his philosophy (both
political and metaphysical) transforms state- and party-functions into
nation and militant. He loudly proclaims to be a communist but you'd
have to really squint to see any Marxist content in his work. He's
openly hostile to both anarchism and political economy, ruling out any
sort of syndicalist politics, which of course doesn't endear him to
me. He's beyond skeptical of feminism, queer politics, etc, but his
political group, OP, works primarily on migrant issues. He should be
shot for his reading of Spinoza in Being and Event. His readings of
Beckett are actually quite original and insightful. His proposal that
France and Germany should form nation to combat US unilaterlism is
ludicrous coming from an avowed communist. His writings on the
anti-headscarf law in France are masterful <www.lacan.com/islbad.htm
>. And so on.
If you do read him I would suggest starting with Ethics and Metapolitics before moving on to Being and Event and Logics of Worlds (the latter of which I haven't read) and the other metaphysical books. I have to disagree with Dwayne about his politics books, which I think are pretty vapid. Recently, Voyou Desoeuvre wondered whether Badiou actually has a conception of politics. Given that his political writings alternate between whiny sloganeering and pointless abstraction, I'd say he doesn't. Anyway, you can read the seed version of the Sarkozy book here: <www.newleftreview.org/?view=2705>.
So I don't know if you'd find him worth it. I tend to think no, but you can never tell with these things.