07-08-2016, 12:11 AM
theoretically, there is no reason one couldn't make every edit suggested as soon as possible. it isn't as if by making the revision and posting it one is necessarily committed to it. if someone says "it's all wrong. you should change x, y, and z", then do it, post it, and see how that works, ask "what d'you think?". there need be no genuine agreement with the criticism in order to make the edits. it isn't like a painting whereby suggested revisions are a mission to implement and an even bigger mission to correct. or, let's say, it isn't like the poem is already printed, published, and being sold in Waterstones. this is a dedicated website that affords one a platform to make infinite edits and re-edits, with none of them being cut in stone.
practically, of course, it is rarely that straightforward. a spelling mistake, a specific word suggestion, punctuation problems, basic structural issues, etc. are all pretty easy fixes. but the more vague or general suggestions would take time and consideration. saying "i think the tone shift halfway through the poem, from morbid to jolly, doesn't quite work" could take a lot of thought to correct, and it may not be worth the effort of going through a long re-writing process if one didn't agree with the criticism in the first place. but, even if one does agree, it should be expected that the edit will take time and possibly abandoned altogether.
also, i think sometimes newer poets may not feel entirely confident that they will apply the changes correctly. and this is not to be sniffed at, even for experienced poets, because it adds a very real dimension of immediate and concrete expectation. before the criticism everything is abstract. now the direct question is being asked, "can you make this work without the jarring tone shift from morbid to jolly?" a lot of new poets might reply, "i shouldn't even like to attempt it as an experiment, lest i fail."
i suppose all of this is a roundabout way of saying i think the swiftness of the edit [understanding, of course, there is no obligation to make any edit, whatsoever] will be relative to the critique. and as such there can be no hard and fast rules for time scales, etc. my personal rule is if the suggestions are specific i can edit there and then. the more vague suggestions, i would have to weigh up the benefits against the time and effort it would tke to make the edits. meaning, is it worth making an edit that will be time consuming if it is only intended as an experiment, an 'it can't hurt' kind of thing, but not being entirely sold on the criticism itself.
i'm not sure if that answers your question. i can't even remember what the question was, now. but i've written all this waffle and i'll be damned if i'm not going to post it.
oh also, this reminds me of an example of how not to take criticism and suggestions: ages ago i remember someone posted an emo 'i hate myself and want to die' type poem in serious. along with the poem being awful sentimental trite the author had omitted the spaces between punctuation mark and word, something like this: i want to cut myself.i'm sad.mummy doesn't love me...nor's dad. when it was pointed out that it was a generally accepted standard that spaces be used for readability purposes, he accused everyone of being The Man, and trying to stifle his self-expression and natural genius with societal norms, and that he had transcended and reached a higher vibration of existence that us mere mortals and our so-called 'standards of spaces between punctuation marks' could never understand [i have to say, as rebellious planes of existence go, the one where rules about spaces between punctuation and word are flouted must be a zone of very low expectation]. anyway, we've all seen this before, someone posting in a critical forum and then refusing to take criticism. as far as i remember, he didn't edit it. the point is, what is lost by simply trying it on for size? especially with such a specific suggestion. i suppose some people are just cunts.
practically, of course, it is rarely that straightforward. a spelling mistake, a specific word suggestion, punctuation problems, basic structural issues, etc. are all pretty easy fixes. but the more vague or general suggestions would take time and consideration. saying "i think the tone shift halfway through the poem, from morbid to jolly, doesn't quite work" could take a lot of thought to correct, and it may not be worth the effort of going through a long re-writing process if one didn't agree with the criticism in the first place. but, even if one does agree, it should be expected that the edit will take time and possibly abandoned altogether.
also, i think sometimes newer poets may not feel entirely confident that they will apply the changes correctly. and this is not to be sniffed at, even for experienced poets, because it adds a very real dimension of immediate and concrete expectation. before the criticism everything is abstract. now the direct question is being asked, "can you make this work without the jarring tone shift from morbid to jolly?" a lot of new poets might reply, "i shouldn't even like to attempt it as an experiment, lest i fail."
i suppose all of this is a roundabout way of saying i think the swiftness of the edit [understanding, of course, there is no obligation to make any edit, whatsoever] will be relative to the critique. and as such there can be no hard and fast rules for time scales, etc. my personal rule is if the suggestions are specific i can edit there and then. the more vague suggestions, i would have to weigh up the benefits against the time and effort it would tke to make the edits. meaning, is it worth making an edit that will be time consuming if it is only intended as an experiment, an 'it can't hurt' kind of thing, but not being entirely sold on the criticism itself.
i'm not sure if that answers your question. i can't even remember what the question was, now. but i've written all this waffle and i'll be damned if i'm not going to post it.
oh also, this reminds me of an example of how not to take criticism and suggestions: ages ago i remember someone posted an emo 'i hate myself and want to die' type poem in serious. along with the poem being awful sentimental trite the author had omitted the spaces between punctuation mark and word, something like this: i want to cut myself.i'm sad.mummy doesn't love me...nor's dad. when it was pointed out that it was a generally accepted standard that spaces be used for readability purposes, he accused everyone of being The Man, and trying to stifle his self-expression and natural genius with societal norms, and that he had transcended and reached a higher vibration of existence that us mere mortals and our so-called 'standards of spaces between punctuation marks' could never understand [i have to say, as rebellious planes of existence go, the one where rules about spaces between punctuation and word are flouted must be a zone of very low expectation]. anyway, we've all seen this before, someone posting in a critical forum and then refusing to take criticism. as far as i remember, he didn't edit it. the point is, what is lost by simply trying it on for size? especially with such a specific suggestion. i suppose some people are just cunts.