[Retros] On the definition of the Retro genre

[Rol, Guus]

A question was asked some time ago for the definition of the "Retro"
genre. I will not go in the deep end of this muddy pool but rather make
a basic observation which may easily be overlooked.
 
A retro-problem is one recognizable as a retro-problem or published in a
retro-context.
 
Almost a no-brainer but not quite. Some retro-compositions are not
easily perceived as such and therefore need a specific context for
publication. Then, is the stipulation not enough? No, it is not. To
solve and understand these problems one needs to know that
retro-conventions apply when they clearly differ from standard
composition rules, e.g. the repetition convention.
 
I made this observation on a discussion of one of my retro-problems
published outside the explicit retrograde domain. Note that I do not
disapprove of this practice, as it may provide an intentional fresh
challenge. But within a formal definition system, a diagram +
stipulation may clearly be insufficient to identify a member of our
beloved retro-family. So, arguably, our stipulations should include the
"Retro!" tag in all cases of doubtful descent. Anything in 'Dittman' on
this?
 
Guus Rol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20070214/67988451/attachment.htm>