Should it be studied? Yes, of course. It's difficult though since there is such a wide disagreement over the most basic elements of the letter. People can't agree over who it was written to and why or what type of writing it is.
It wouldn't be too much of a problem if everyone agreed on a general reference, such as it being written to and for a group of people in the first century sometime. But people don't treat it like that. Many treat it as if it were written for some distant future audience far removed from the first century. Further, people can't get their heads around the type of writing it is. We approach it with very westerinized thinking and think that everything in the book is either literal or metaphorical; it's either a predictive textbook or it isn't. We often don't allow for an author to be human; we don't allow him to use hyperbole, symbols, and vivid imagery.
What I see many people failing to see that the book of Revelation is written to and for a first century audience with a message that they will understand. What John is not telling them about is nuclear war, helicopters, UN or EU peace treaties, etc.. This should be evident to people, but it's often missed:
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
2:1 To the angel of the church in Ephesus
2:8 To the angel of the church in Smyrna
2:12 To the angel of the church in Pergamum
2:18 To the angel of the church in Thyatira
3:1 To the angel of the church in Sardis
3:7 To the angel of the church in Philadelphia
3:14 To the angel of the church in Laodicea
22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
The book opens and closes with a specific reference to the churches of Asia Minor. Two chapters of the book have explicit references and particular messages for each of those churches. How can it still be doubted that this book is written TO and FOR churches in Asia Minor in the first century?
Sometimes people will do really silly things like say "take the text literally unless it's obviously metaphorical", then they will turn right around and say that the 7 churches in Asia Minorare metaphorical/symbolical for church ages or types of churches throughout history! It doesn't get much more inconsistent. You might as well throw away the axiom if you're going to take such a clear literal reference to be some type of methaphor or symbol.
In failing to account for the genre and audience of the book people will start to interpret everything as if it's refering to events contemporary to us. Things like: helicopters, nuclear war, wild anti-christ speculation (to include any number of silly guesses: the RCC, Ronald Regan, Tony Blair, Kofi Anan, Barak Obama, Javier Solana, Sunday worship, computers, the internet, and on and on and on....), modern day peace treaties like the Geneva Accords, some Revived Roman Empire, the EU, the UN, NAFTA, etc... There is really no end to much of this nonsense so long as people fail to use a good method of interpretation.
So, should we study the book? Yes, absolutely. But by "study" we shouldn't take the book and start running rampant through the newspaper trying to piece together John's book from the Associated Press, Fox News, or CNN.