Bad Reviews

[Kol Saresk]

Let me start off by saying that when someone does a review, ultimately the review is determined by personal bias. For example, many people love the Power Rangers, but justify the goofiness and B-Rated antics as "well, it's a kid show." Me, while I grew up loving the show and to this day still am a fan, I cannot rewatch it without having a series of facial twitches and eye spasms about the more over the top bits, like an entire episode devoted to fighting "self-doubt" by remembering how your butt was being handed to you. So the goal of this thread is to basically review a review, specifically a bad one. And by bad, I mean "did the person actually pay attention to the material they reviewed?"

Now, where am I going with this? Well recently, I had purchased The Tribute of Flesh by David Annadale. Curiosity piqued, I went to see if there was other related material and found The Death of Antagonis. Partway through the book, I decided to research the Swords of Epiphany, to see if there was anything about them since the idea of a Chaos Warband made from the rejects of the program that created the Exorcists was definitely a brain-starter. Accidentally, I stumbled onto this review. Now, as I said earlier, a review's verdict of "This was good" or "It sucked horrendously" is a matter of personal bias, or how one takes the pros and cons of a certain topic and then promotes one over the other as they were affected by said pros and cons. But, the review should be factually correct. For example, a review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen should have seen the part at the beginning of the movie when Sam found a shard of the All Spark in his old jacket and then kept it with him the rest of the movie instead of saying how one of the cons was how the movie never explained how Sam got the shard he used to revive Jetfire.

This review is a bad review because it is factually incorrect. Seriously, its almost like the critic just glimpsed over it and said "It sucks" on some points and on others, I could almost swear this is somebody completely unfamiliar with the large breadth and scope of the 40K background. So from here, I'm going to take the incorrect facts and point out where the critic missed a glaring fact.

Now first, the critic notes how the beginning of the book jumps from some seemingly unrelated event to the Black Dragons arriving on Antagonis and coming to the aid of some one thousand civilians trying to survive a plague of undeath. Now, he[the critic] assumes that the two events are separated by at least a matter of weeks and that nothing was done to connect them together. True, David Annandale did not create the timeline of the story in a linear progression. It isn't until we see the xeno-archaelogist again in Chapter three that we find out the two events, are only separated by the space of a single week. Even later in the book, it is mentioned how the plague only took a week to spread across the entire planet and the only reason the xeno-archaelogist was cleared was because he left just before the plague began.

"Laod bearing walls had become heretical." Now, without the context, I expect you to read this quote from the novel and go "Ummm, what the flippers man?" Now, here is the context. The society of Antagonis is explained at how early on in their development, they had begun to support their buildings with pillars, much like some Greco-Roman architecture, rather than with walls. Add some grimdark superstition and a few thousand years of social degradation, what was once a quirk of architecture is now viewed as the only "right way" to build a building. But for some reason this is weird in a universe where Mechanics are Priests who pray and baptize the machines they use on a regular basis because they don't realize a good carb clean can fix that stuttering at 3,000 RPM like nobody's business.

Now, moving on the next bit, which starts with this line from the novel: "Only the Grey Knights were supposed to know there was such a thing as the Ordo Malleus." The critic takes the opinion that because the Black Dragons had interacted with the Inquisition(you know, the same organization that normally introduces itself as just "The Inquisition" and very rarely by its specific Ordo). And then goes on about "how this is obviously contradicting itself and established fluff". This is one of my personal "schticks" as we should all know that as readers, we have a wider view than the in-universe characters. For example, being well-versed in the lore of the Grey Knights, a Chapter so secretive that it isn't uncommon for the Space Marines who fight alongside them to have their memories wiped and are highly involved with the even more secretive Ordo Malleus. So, according to established lore, the Black Dragons are not supposed to know the Ordo Malleus exists and yet, they do not because the author contradicted himself, but because the Black Dragons were smart enough to learn about the very people who wanted to exterminate them. And then he goes on to say how since the Inquisitor mentions that relations between his Ordo and the Black Dragons have never been good, David Annadale is contradicting himself. Umm, if the cat is out of the bag, why pretend its still in there? But hey, reader's perspective. The critic then goes on to say that a lack of knowledge about a specific Ordo must mean that there is supposed to be a lack of knowledge about the overall organization.

Now, onto the Swords of Epiphany. According to the critic, all we got on them were some defining personality traits, such as being heavily possessed, Nurgle levels of blissfulness and view themselves as evangelists of their own personal concept of "purity".

Now, if you paid attention to the beginning of this post, you will remember that I mentioned that the Swords of Epiphany were made from the rejects of the Exorcists' creation program. This is actually explained throughout the novel in two major bits. The first is when we are fully introduced to the main antagonist and the Swords of Epiphany's master, Cardinal Rodrigo Nessun. This is also in Chapter three by the way. Here he goes into a diatribe where he explains that he had been apart of the experiment leading up to the Chapter's founding and that he had basically become corrupted at this point in time during the experiment. From there, he gathered some of the failures and then set off into the Eye of Terror. Now, at this point the wording is vague enough that you have to infer this by assembling the pieces presented. So the second major bit, is when it is explicitly stated that he had been involved with the creation of the Exorcists and had been labeled as a traitor ever since he went rogue. Which pretty much makes the origin story of the Swords of Epiphany pretty dang fully detailed.

The next bit, I'm hesitant to go into. Mostly because its hard to see where it is factually incorrect and just opiniated bias. Reason being is because some parts, like how the other main antagonist apparently just flip flops even though his corruption was decently detailed with how his mind was at one point left open to the warp, and from there the Cardinal began polluting his mind with how he needed to purify the Chapter to how instead he needed to purify the Imperium and going from the need of purifying the body to the "realization" that it was instead the spirit that needed to be purified. Through daemonic possession.

But ultimately, that ends my rant/review. Personally, this irks because reviews do one primary thing: the influence the audience to either avoid a certain topic(in this case, a novel) or to stampede towards it in droves. Personally, fine, cool beans. Its normally an opinion and opinions are, well they're opinions. But when that opinion is based on a lack of information and is then spread as being an absolute fact, that's where my feathers get ruffled. I can say "Night Lords rule" every day, but when I start ignoring things like Prince of Crows and AD-B's trilogy and saying things like "They've never been beaten!", I have issues and I need to be stopped from spreading that falsehood. Preferably as soon as possible. So, normally, I'd be "eh", okay they don't like the novel. Cool beans. Maybe my opinion will be different when I finished this last bit. But that isn't what happened. Instead I had a "Are you reading the same thing I am because that and this did happen and were explained and required background information in order to understand."

So, I want to try and end this on a positive note by asking you, the community of BnC, are there any "bad reviews" that you've found? Did you ultimately agree with the end statement(This was a good/bad novel) or were you pleasantly surprised that the novel had turned out better than you expected because you noticed the things the critic missed?

[helterskelter]

I personally either avoid reviews entirely because they are probably going to contain information I don't wish to know, or if I'm slightly less bothered about what's to be reviewed, I will read multiple reviews.

Bad example, but bbc radio 1 (not by choice here in the slightest, I despise radio one) did a mini review on dredd, and the misinformed young lady wasn't fully aware that he (dredd) doesn't often remove his helmet, i screamed at the radio that day.

Now more on topic, as regards BL authors, I will read a book if It interests me irregardless of authors and the reviews they get (ref mcneil bashing), then read the reviews after and compare notes. If theres bits i missed, i can reread, if the review is just a bias fuelled miasma I'll move on to the next

[Sevatar]

Bellarius is normally a top notch reviewer. You can rely on him, like Minyato Musashi, on Warseer, too to truly pinpoint the weakneyses of the book. Both great at it.

[deathspectersgt7]

I do not read reviews of books . I can not go by another persons opinion.

[Aegnor]

I like to read reviews sometimes after I've finished a book. It can be interesting to hear another's view of the book - a bit like talking about the book with someone who read it.

 

Sometimes you'll disagree strongly with a review. At times this will be because the reviewer hasn't appeared to pay attention. I do find I tend to have a few reviewers whose views I find worthwhile, and who review the kind of stuff I like to read, and that I tend to keep going back to them.

[Perrin]

Is this really such a good idea? Don't get me wrong Kol, that was a great post and reading the actual review I agree on some points (haven't read DoA so can't really empathise) but this seems a slippery slope. Should we start reviewing reviews of reviews next? Most reviewers of BL novels are also forum users remember, this seems almost like an attack, although I'm not suggesting you meant it in that way at all.

It's different with authors because most of them don't visit forums, or recognise that bad reviews come as part of the job (except ADB, an exception on both counts).

I totally agree that a lot of the time reviews can be just as bad as the book they are slating, and it is really annoying to read a review that just gets the most basic facts wrong, but is this really the way to bring it up? I'd be interested in reading your reviews of novels actually, show us what a review looks like

[SteelPaladin]

It really bothers me that the internet really brings out the cynical toughguy reviewers.

 

Its super cool on the internet to be extra critical of people who actually create things for a living.

[b1soul]

I have a problem with the opposite...gushing reviews of how everything about a BL novel is tremendously great or how "this is the best/one of the best HH novel to date"

 

I then buy the novel based on the glowing review, and it's mediocre at best with fundamental problems: bland prose, flat, interchangeable characters, forgettable dialogue, unintentional hilarity

 

Usually, bad reviews turn out to be more honest. Reviewers who receive advance copies have more of an incentive to praise than to criticise. Too much criticism, even if honest, and they risk pissing off the publisher and that means no more advance copies. 

[Xwingt65]

To be honest, i thought it was a good review.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

 

Its super cool on the internet to be extra critical of people who actually create things for a living.

 

You put something in the public domain and it will be criticized because that is the nature of people.

[Kol Saresk]

Is this really such a good idea? Don't get me wrong Kol, that was a great post and reading the actual review I agree on some points (haven't read DoA so can't really empathise) but this seems a slippery slope. Should we start reviewing reviews of reviews next? Most reviewers of BL novels are also forum users remember, this seems almost like an attack, although I'm not suggesting you meant it in that way at all.

It's different with authors because most of them don't visit forums, or recognise that bad reviews come as part of the job (except ADB, an exception on both counts).

I totally agree that a lot of the time reviews can be just as bad as the book they are slating, and it is really annoying to read a review that just gets the most basic facts wrong, but is this really the way to bring it up? I'd be interested in reading your reviews of novels actually, show us what a review looks like

True, it can be a slippery slope. And this was not meant to be an attack. I actually spent a couple of weeks mulling it over on whether or not I should do it and honestly, I'm still not sure. If the mods come by an decide to shut it down because it is not viewed as productive to the community, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

And here's the thing, some authors look at reviews hoping to see where they could have done better. Like B1Soul said, a negative review is sometimes more honest. Like any normal review, it will be subject to the bias of the critic. For example I have seen very few negative reviews of AD-B's material. Most of them are simply "It didn't match my view" or "It forced me to suspend too much disbelief", basically their opinions ran contrary to the material of the book, not that the book was shoddy writing. Which can happen. Just because something is well-written it doesn't mean it will be well-liked.

But then there are the few that bring genuine concerns with the book and address them.

And then there's the other end of the spectrum where there is usually at least that one person who goes into a rather vague review of how much they loved the book and sometimes it makes you wonder if they got past the "written by Aaron Dembski-Bowden".

And honestly, I being the factual-driven person I am, tend to have eye-twitches and facial spasms over the reviews that try to push a certain positive view while ignoring facts that run contrary to the opinion just as much as I will the reviews like the one above, where the critic seemed to have a lapse in the over all material and seemed to have skippe over a few small, but rather major tidbits that related directly to his concerns.

[A D-B]

Bad reviews are just part of the gig, no matter who you are. You can even start to get a feel for certain reviewers - f'rex, there's one that's fairly notorious among the author circle and a few fan groups as being absolutely dedicated to authors who are just starting out, in-house BL staff writers, or those who rose from the fanfiction community he's part of. Established authors tend to suffer in his reviews, no matter their style or the subject of the novel. It's just how he is - getting a bad review from him is considered a bit of a mark of honour.

 

One thing that's universally true is that it's far easier to disappoint a long-time reader than it is to convert a long-time critic. Which is why even authors like Dan (and Insert Any Famous Author Name From Any Genre Here) will always have ups and downs over the course of their careers. Licensed fiction doubly runs the risk of it because of expectation. People see a book cover or the character/faction being written about, and they have immediate expectations. For all the great reviews of Soul Hunter, there were several when I first started that slated it (and me) for not making "focus Night Lords" and for not carrying on with Simon Spurrier's story instead of adhering to the actual background. Expectation is like anticipation: it can drive sales but also drive bad reviews, as plenty of reviewers, readers, fans, moviegoers, et al. often consider "It's not what I expected" and "It's not what I'd have done" to mean "This isn't done well" and "This isn't any good."

 

And we've all done that from time to time, so I tend not to have hard feelings. I'm the same, after all. I can't judge the first few X-Men films with any fair perspective because although everyone says they're great, I think they're awful and feel absolutely nothing like X-Men. Hugh Jackman's take on Wolverine has never lit my world on fire but it's a safe and consistent portrayal, sure... But Cyclops - a major, major character in the team (the team's leader) had about three lines of dialogue in the space of 2 movies, was killed in the third without a word, and did nothing at all, ever. Similarly, Rogue was one of the helpless X-kids like Jubilee in the cartoon, instead of a spunky, powerful, characterful Southern Belle. And I always think to myself, hey, if you're going to use a license for something, use the license for it. Don't just slap "X-Men" on it when it's really about some Cool People in Cool Leather and half of the things that make it the X-Men are rendered obsolete, changed, or left entirely silent. Why delete Optimus Prime from Transformers, for example? Or Raphael from TMNT? Or change Jazz into a white accountant who doesn't talk in rhymes? Sure, they're still talking turtle ninjas and robots that transform, but why are you taking the license?

 

(On a related note, this is also why I loved X-Men: First Class and the 70s scenes in Days of Future Past. They felt like the X-Men.)

 

So, joking aside, I get what it's like to bring the weight of expectation to a license and feel like the creator wasted an opportunity because it doesn't gel with what I like about the faction.

 

Negative reviews can be useful. Not often, admittedly, because the age of reviewing as a critic's actual career is on the way out. Rather than the honesty of critical thinking, they're slams against expectation versus reality, or "I don't see Faction X this way therefore the book is terrible" taken to extremes. But, again, they're at least understandable. People invest a lifetime of love into their favourite factions. You can usually understand a bad review, even if it's on the bleakest end of the scale, becoming essentially wrong/nonsense/a character assassination, etc.

 

The only ones I actively dislike are the ones that lie. The ones that say "Well, this happened and it was ridiculous..." purely to render something into an easily mockable soundbite, ignoring the context or twisting the event to serve whatever strawman argument the reviewer is trying to make. And these are pretty common - even if I get off lightly and end up lucky with my reviews, I still get them. And I see them everywhere online in every fandom, as I'm sure you all do, too.

 

Good reviews are... good reviews. You wish more people took the time to do them. You silently (or publically) thank them for doing them in the first place, because it's so much easier and more common to take the time to say something critical and negative instead of polite and positive. Especially online, where positivity is so often considered passivity, and negativity is considered "telling it like it is" and fighting the good fight by raging against the machine. Good reviews can be just as useful, but most authors don't read their reviews for usefulness. They read them like quarterly job reports and an insight into what people think of their writing, which is natural enough.

 

Every book I write is always, in my mind, "This'll be the one they hate..." which becomes likelier over time both because I'm writing more esoteric and lore-drenched stuff with the weight of expectation, and because there's just more out there to hate. The Talon of Horus is the one I've got chills about now because of how much it's focused on finding Abaddon rather than hanging out with him - it's the quest at the beginning of the series, about the characters who will become the Black Legion's founders in Book II, tracking him down before anyone even starts wearing Black - and I know there'll be reviews that slate it because it's got Abaddon on the cover and doesn't detail what Person X expects, and so on. Those are just punches you have to take when you make a choice of what you're writing about. And if it's not Talon, it'll be Master of Mankind, where people hate it because the Webway War zigged instead of zagged, or whatever. And if it's not MoM, it'll be...

 

...And so on. Just like how before Talon it was The Emperor's Gift (Will they hate first-person writing?), for The First Heretic (will they hate my take on the Word Bearers?), or Void Stalker (Insert a million reasons), etc.

 

Hope this rambling slice of internal consciousness is at least a little enlightening on the subject.

[Conn Eremon]

Just wanted to say that my one takeaway from this thread is that I am now even more excited for The Talon of Horus. God damn it, AD-B, stop unintentionally hyping your still unreleased work!

[reckoning]

Screw Abbadon, bring on Master of Mankind!

[Chaeron]

Sometimes, it's hard to ignore reviews - insofar as there is recognition that they exist and that there may be a pervading opinion, but as a 'literary critic', researcher and theorist, it's recognising the subjectivity of those reviews - and taking your own approach. It's negligent to just assume on the basis of someone else, because every reading of every text is entirely different for each person. The subtleties and contextual elements and what the "reader brings" to the relationship between the text and reader is going to be different for each person, because of their life history, expectations, and all else besides. The only way to truly form an opinion on a text is to actually partake in the act of reading - doing anything else is lazy, as it texts rely on their engagement with readers (in the loosest sense, as part of the act of reading). 

 

I often find it humorous to read those sorts of reviews - the power of one's agenda is inevitably a driving factor, but some people hate certain authors and refuse to do anything but slate them, irrespective of the work itself. I appreciate we can have those sorts of prejudices, but if you're making any pretense of actively trying to review impartially, those have to be put to the side for the purpose of a review. 

 

I'd hate to live my life based solely upon the opinions of others. I can occasionally see the value (avoid this company, this thing does the thing you want it to do well), but when it comes to the arts, it's all about your response to the stimuli presented to you.

[Veteran Sergeant]

It really bothers me that the internet really brings out the cynical toughguy reviewers.

 

Its super cool on the internet to be extra critical of people who actually create things for a living.

If you create stuff for free, maybe. But once you attempt to sell your creations, you're fair game for people sharing their opinion on the monetary value, or lack thereof, of that content.

 

Honestly, there are a lot of books out there. Reviews just help weed the bad from the good.

 

I didn't make it but a few chapters into tDoA. You might even say it was... DOA. Better ways to waste my time than to continue, lol.

[Stonerhino]

For a long a time now.  I just go to forums that have good discusions about the books.  A review is just the opinion of a single reviewer where as the forums have multiple people's opinions.  Also the increased likelyhood that at least one of them will have the answer to a problem you have with said book.  Or just as likely you will have an answer to their problem. 

 

It really is a bonus when you can get the authors themselves to make appearances and great when they discuss their own works.

[SteelPaladin]

 

It really bothers me that the internet really brings out the cynical toughguy reviewers.

 

Its super cool on the internet to be extra critical of people who actually create things for a living.

If you create stuff for free, maybe. But once you attempt to sell your creations, you're fair game for people sharing their opinion on the monetary value, or lack thereof, of that content.

 

Honestly, there are a lot of books out there. Reviews just help weed the bad from the good.

 

I didn't make it but a few chapters into tDoA. You might even say it was... DOA. Better ways to waste my time than to continue, lol.

 

I was just referring to bad reviews that are negative just for the sake of being critical. There are certainly bad reviews that are helpful, but it seems like more and more I see reviews that are just critical without reason.

 

I love movies; arthouse flicks, B horror movies, pretty much anything. Roger Ebert was always my favorite film reviewer, because even when he gave a movie a low score, I could understand why, because he laid everything out so well. He was never critical just to be nitpicky. I often disagreed with his opinions, but could always see where he was coming from.

[Kol Saresk]

That's why I was trying to make a distinction between bad reviews and negative reviews. A negative review is a well-constructed piece stating why the critic found a novel bad and why. For example, Vulkan Lives. Well-written book. When I first read the opening it I was like "Heck yeah! That's how the Night Lords roll!" And then when I found out those were actually Word Bearers it was "Hold up! Duwhat?!?!?!"

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XU5mlig4aBc/UW7q6iwTsII/AAAAAAAAA0E/N1lYI-gY_os/s1600/dont-do-email.gif

 

so that and other legitimate reasons, admittedly mostly my opinion versus the author's opinion of how things probably should have been handled, resulted in me giving a negative review.

 

But then there were so many "Well it was Nick Kyme so because I didn't like this book, it was obviously poorly written! Shame on you Nick!"

[Felix Antipodes]

I usually avoid reviews of stories I haven't read yet. Not because of spoilers but to limit preconceived ideas beforehand. Afterwards, I will delve into all the reviews I can find as they often bring up subtle elements that I may have missed or offer confirmation of passages I thought were ropey or badly explained. In the end though, all that matters to me is if I liked the authors work and no review will change that view (although the occasional reread over time has!).

[Dorian]

Bad reviews are something that's really getting to me. When after reading a review you make me go "Uhm, that was explained on page X" or "You didn't see the connection between two events then you haven't read page Y" and " What are you talking about? There were hints thrown in all over the book" then I really have to wonder if you have read the same book as me. A review is always going to be biased. Some more, some less. Nobody can be completely objective about something. That's something I can forgive unless you are only out to bash a certain author because it's making you feel cool. But if you complain about missing background that's clearly in the book I can't take you serious.

 

Opinions are different which is a good thing, otherwise so much art and ideas would never see the light of day. 

[Legatus]

Its normally an opinion and opinions are, well they're opinions. But when that opinion is based on a lack of information and is then spread as being an absolute fact, that's where my feathers get ruffled.

 

 

Not so much about reviews, but that is what I see in most criticism leveled against the Ultramarines. (Or have seen. There really hasn't been so much of that lately...)

 

Stuff like:

 

"Guilliman was just building his own empire while all the others were crusading."

 

"Guilliman forced everyone to adopt his way of fighting."

 

"Guilliman was a good organizer and administrator, but not a general."

 

"The Codex Astartes completely restricts a Chapter, and weakened the Imperium."

 

"The other Primarchs/Legions dislike Guilliman/the Ultramarines because they are so arrogant and think they are the best."

 

 

In terms of reviews, every time I read a review of any Uriel Ventris book and how "Graham managed to make the Ultramarines interesting" I just roll my eyes.

[Balthamal]

I think what truly sets bad reviews apart from positive/negative ones is that most of them contain a bold statement, usually along the lines of "This novel is :cuss" which is then justified with "Author X wrote it and I think they're a :cuss" whereas "I've found author X's prose to veer between all out action and tedious pace with no middle ground" expresses the same opinion but at least attempts to justify that opinion.

 

Constructive criticism is a wonderful thing imo. In every walk of life you'll have to take some of it at some point or another as you travel through the decades, anything from painting/modelling techniques to get a hyper active 5 year old to bed before the break of dawn. But the important word in there is constructive. If all anyone is going to do is complain from personal bias then it's simply a bad review, someone who is able to pin point shortcomings in a novel (in the reviewer's opinions) and then articulate them in a well thought out manner is a good reviewer, even if the review itself isn't "good"

 

Using Kol's example above for Vulkan Lives, I thought the scenes with the Night Haunter weren't as good as they could be because (IMO) they lacked depth to the character and his motivations and actions throughout, jar too much with some of the other material that's out there already. Overall though I enjoyed the book. None of that makes me a good or bad reviewer, it's just an opinion.

 

On the flip side of that, I agree with the comment regarding some of the reviews of ADB's work in that some of them feel like they're glowing because of the name of the author rather than the actual content but that's due to the reviewers inability to accurately state what aspects they found impressive and why. 

 

The thing to keep in mind however is that a review is, by nature, subjective. It's a person's opinion about a book and the variables are such that remaining objective is next to impossible. There's things like perspective (first and third person), character arcs (long and short), pace (slow burning and break-neck speed) action (detailed or realistically obscured) and dozens of other variations across a dozen other components.

 

In general, I only pay attention if at least half a dozen or more reviews are in agreement, either for or against, the same points but if in doubt just read it yourself. Only way to be sure

[daveNYC]

Rogue wasn't bad in the X-Men movies, in the comics she didn't become a flying punching machine until she absorbed some other hero's power, so having her in the movies as a scared kid with about the worst mutant power possible (can't touch anyone, ever) wasn't horrible.

 

Dredd doesn't remove his helmet, ever.  Never ever.*  And the first movie never happened.  The second movie actually wasn't bad, pretty Judge Dreddish IMO.

 

On the subject of bad reviews, I think part of the issue can be lack of familiarity with the source material.  The other issue can be too much familiarity with the source material.  So in the case of the lack of load bearing walls (seriously, was everything a one story building on stilts?) lack of familiarity would make a reader think it's the dumbest thing ever, but potentially too much familiarity could make the reviewer gloss over something that's still pretty damn stupid because their knowledge of the setting lets them accept it.

 

* Technically not never.

[Kol Saresk]

This is what the book was talking about when it said the buildings did not have load bearing walls:

 

http://dkiel.com/GreeceTurkey/Ephesus/ArtemisTemple/artemistemple.jpg

 

So every single building is supported by pillars. In between those pillars, there are walls. But their only purpose is to show off stained glass art, painted murals or to cover the people inside, not to support the roof over someone's head like say, the houses most modern people live in where you have a wall with support beams covered by a second wall with the whole thing functioning as a single, load bearing wall.

 

So not really stupid since more than a few buildings in days gone past were built that way. In fact, I could be wrong but IIRC the Colosseum in Rome has no load bearing walls, but is instead supported by a series of pillars and arches that in turn supported the seats, thus no load bearing walls.

 

That's the architecture David Annadale was referring to; ancient architecture the likes of which we don't really see in most modern structures except for skyscrapers.