FLYMPH FORUM

This is definitely a very interesting topic full of interesting ideas and theories. Style, to me, can be a somewhat negative word. I've penned (typed) these feelings before, but will briefly reiterate. Style to me means a certain attitude, flair, addition or embellishment which does NOT necessarily add anything to the effectiveness or functionality of the object. Design, however, is more basic and has to do with the functionality. If something is designed well, it functions as intended to the utmost without extras which really don't contribute to the functionality.

Now, here, we speak of style as a personal influence upon a created object such as a fly. I prefer to use the words "personal influence" rather than "style". There is no getting around it, certain tiers are easily recognized through their work by how the fly is tied by them. I know you might feel this is a matter of semantics, but it helps me keep things straight in my mind.

To add to this discussion, when we look at flies, do we judge them on "style" or "design". Flies which are based in good designs will probably catch fish, but if there is a flaw in the basic design, it probably will not. To add to this, does it matter if a fly is tied differently from one tier to the next? What I mean is does it matter if, for example, one tier ties a wingless wet by tying the hackle on first and another ties the hackle on last if the overall result fits the basic design once completed?

We sometimes get hung up on doing things our own way and often forget the main objective. The function, it seems to me, of a good fly is to catch fish, and what does it matter if the hackle is wrapped back or forward, as long as the design is sound and the fly functions properly.

I could fish with the most accurately and beautifully created fly on the end of my line, yet a friend of mine could be catching more fish on his clumsily fashioned fly of the same design and pattern. SO, does accuracy and beauty equal effectiveness? One might argue that the other fisherman may be more adept than I or know more than I. What would you say if the other fisherman were a beginner knowing only the basics?

The thing is, fly fishing is not an exact science. It is fraught with variables and, at times, inexactness. In that variability and inexactness is where I find the fascination, the intrigue, the wonder, and it is what keeps my interest.

Mark

PS. For those that would like more interesting information of fly design, I suggest a copy of Trout Hunting, The Pursuit Of Happiness by Bob Wyatt. There's some great reading and theories within the covers, as well as some great fly patterns photographed by Hans

Great post Mark.

For me, form should follow function. Build as many 'triggers' into the fly as you can, go test it, and see how it catches. If it works, it works.

I think the danger (such as it is!) is to fall in to the trap of tying for the eye, rather than the fish's eye. But I am guilty of it myself. I am convinced, through testing, that the presence of a metal rib on the body of a fly makes for a better fish catcher. Fair enough. But why do I try to wind it as neatly and as evenly spaced as possible? Does it catch more fish than if I just roughly wound it around the body? I doubt it, somehow. It is probably because I know I am going to put it under the scrutiny of the macro lens and post it on the internet. Is there any other explanation than vanity?

But overall, as I say to my ten year old god-daughter - when I am sitting at the vice, I am hunting, not crafting.

She doesn't believe me.

Andrew.

How many of us have had and enjoyed a "Baby Ruth" candy bar?

For folks across the 'Pond' have you seen the movie "Caddy Shack"?
The scene at the swimming pool (appropriate), where someone drops a Baby Ruth candy bar into the pool
("Jaws" theme playing in background).
Kind of looks like a a piece of 'crap' (sorry, but honest). Everyone evacuates the pool, enter Bill Murry,
walks into the pool, looks at the object, then picks it up and ... eats it. Everyone is horrified, except Bill.
He got the prize!

Truly, I DO enjoy the eye candy, leaves me awestruck, dumbfounded, etc. Please don't stop turning them out
and posting them. I do enjoy them immensely.

'Mum Nautre' does not make everything flawless, that's our job as Humans.
I think that it's the flaws that make for the more interesting (to the fish), fly,
thereby the more 'ediable'.

My thoughts ...

This is what Roy Christie says on another forum:

Flydressing is not about looks, it is about getting fish to eat a lump of steel as if it were edible, then ensuring there is no obstruction to his doing so.

The most beautiful thing to my eye is a body of really scruffy hare's ear in the right mix of texture and shades. No other fly can compete. If I can get that feeling when tying other flies I think I have accomplished something. Skunkaroo's "Rust Belt Spider" has something of that quality. Old Hat and Glass Jet, to name a few, have published such flies lately. Many of the forum members seem to tie such flies.

Another fly I find elegant is the Waterhen Bloa, like many other spiders. Some tiers choose material with certain quality and apply this to the hook in a way that make the result stand out from the crowd. Other tiers following the same recepie may produce "lesser" flies but catch fish all the same. It could be compared to the way we differ when casting a fly line. "Poetry in motion" is a common expression. Beautiful casting does not neccesarily translate into fish, but it doesn't hurt the eye either.

dd

hank,
I don't think you will have to worry. Generally tiers strive to create the perfect fly, even though it might be off a bit here and there. They can still be objects of art, as many of the patterns, here, prove. Slight variances in technique or deviations (if you want to call them that) in the tying makes the "personal influence" I was speaking about.

For dd,
I don't often post winged wets, here, but here's a little pic for you!



Mark

For dd,
I don't often post winged wets, here, but here's a little pic for you!



Mark[/quote]

Thank you, Mark. Very much appreciated!!

dd