The aim of this study is to investigate ordinary readers' evaluation of quality in literature. The main issue is which criteria ordinary grown-up readers use when they are defining their likes and dislikes in literature. The analysis is based upon qualitative interviews with six readers, two men and four women, between 21 and 59 years of age. The study is hermeneutic. Since theoretical works concerning evaluation of literature among ordinary readers are sparse, the philosopher of arts and religion Hugo A. Meynell's theories about quality in literature have been used in order to define similarities and differences between expert readers and the interviewees. Differences and similarities in evaluation between the interviewees are discussed, with the purpose of reading and personalities in mind. Results show that there is indeed a difference between expert readers and ordinary readers, in that experts take a more analytical approach towards literature. The interviewees' reading differs between being superficial and analytic, and between an understanding-focused and an emotion-focused way of reading. Their main concern in trying to define quality in literature varies from the contents of the book to its formal structure and writing techniques. The category contents can be divided into concerning subject or narrative of the book. The interviewees show a clear tendency to value the contents of a book while expert readers tend to focus on techniques of writing and linguistic skills.