Literary reception is a special case of language processing. The judgment of literature reveals deep social patterns with embodied cognition. In this study, we investigate how differences in literary quality resonate in the human brain. Modifying a series of stimuli previously used in studies of the emotional potential of , we alternate passages from the original novels with passages from imitative and intentionally poorly written fanfiction. EEG data shows how the three text types are processed differently by the brain. Comparing the brain activity of the readers for the various text types, we see a difference in the absolute power but not in the relative power of the frequency bands. Reading badfiction evokes the lowest activity. However, the functionality of this activity is the same for all texts since the relative power of the frequency bands does not differ. When comparing the participant groups, we observe the opposite situation. Here, different relative powers of the frequency bands reflect different judgments and reading habits of participants. For example, fans of , regular readers of fantasy texts, and generally frequent readers read the texts more attentively, which is reflected in a pronounced relative activity of the theta and alpha frequency bands. Non-frequent readers and readers who are not devoted to and fantasy in general have increased activity in the delta frequency band. This suggests their saliency detection is more prominent because they are less familiar with reading or the subject matter. To support our findings, we use the EEG data without averaging over stimuli and participants, capturing the participants' responses on the level of individual stimuli. A Kohonen self-organizing map trained on this more extensive data finds reliably detectable differences in the responses to passages from the original novels and fan- and badfiction. Our study allows for an interpretation of an adaptive brain response. Readers who enjoy or have experience with the fantasy genre show different reactions from those who do not. Thus, badfiction appears to be processed differently by the human brain, but not for all readers in the same way.