Well, first off, they're not very good. But also, in a way, that's not the point; no-one is reading them because they're good. They're the Objectivist equivalent of things like Battlefield Earth, overwhelmingly read because they were written by a cult founder rather than for the usual reasons one might read a novel.
I have not read her novels, but I stumbled upon her writings many times before. You'll perhaps find Massimo Pigliucci's critique [1] of her whole philosophy worth your time.
As old joke goes “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
but generally you should read it, at least then you know what those libertarian types are thinking.
If you have a penchant for Ayn Rand and her general outlook, I do not think your stance on her can change through rational discussion. There are "primal world beliefs" [1] that are irremediably incompatible.
As someone who lived the horrors of communism through my teen years and thus read Ayn Rand in my middle age, I find her books logical, rational and real-world validated. Attributes utterly lacking from her detractors, strangely enough.
I'm not a libertarian, but hold a lot of libertarian values, "Atlas Shrugged" is a joke. I was expecting to read meaningful libertarian story, but got edgy dream of someone without any power in real life. Sort of "literally me" meme, but in a book format.
See this recent Ask Reddit "What book is an immediate red flag for you when someone says it’s their favorite?" and look at the replies around Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, e.g. this sub-tree:
