"I"

Earlier in the week I wrote a blog "How it happened". I had a very tough time writing it, and I posted it more as a challenge - a psychological test - to myself to write about and publicly share something I'd done, based on a talent. Posting it was tougher than writing it. I won't kid you, it was neat to pull off what I spoke of in the post. But, it isn't me to write about that side of the "I" universe. I love to write of thoughts, ironies, random moments, experiences I've observed first hand or by watching others, or - as it pertains to my personal fishing talents - in a manner that obfuscates the talent and knowledge, focusing on those other things. The obfuscation has gotten me edited by magazines more than once. You see, I am not one to write of the "I" side of talent, especially not in your face the way I did in that post. I'm simply uncomfortable with "I" as it pertains to personal abilities. I, as it pertains to perspective, psychology, observation, thought, consideration, and others on that vein are right up my alley. Yeah, I can fish but I'd rather share, discuss, and interact about those other things.


Do I like to discuss catching another trout all the time? Is there always something amazing about an 8lb brown, a 6lb brookie, a 22" cutt, a 6lb small stream rainbow? How about catching 50 trout in a day? 100? How about 200? Gee, can I tell you about my then OCD side - the day I caught 257 cutts (and bothered to count)? And does it matter that on this year's trip to NZ, we cleaned house because we first thought of why a fish would be where it was before setting out simply to fish each and every day? Would it be more impressive (to who?) to know that we had the skill to average 10 - 12 fish a day in the 4 - 11 pound range, more impressive that we made extremely accurate deductions about when to fish and where to have such success, or more impressive that we had the mental capacity and endurance to fish all but 7 or 8 days of nearly 3 months? Or is it most impressive that Amelia & I have a relationship that endures and allows for such a trip? Or, further, as Amelia and I spoke of this last night, even sharing this paragraph will see some folks receive it as me "bragging", some will be bored at the psychology behind the post, others will wish I'd shared more, and many won't read it because there aren't any shiny fish-porn (uggh) pictures.

It hasn't always just been results through talent binding me from some areas of open discussion. Discussion of knowledge has also been interesting. I can discuss tippet, casting style, analyze what's going on, talk about flies and hooks, and a whole range of topics. I guess I can hold my own as well as many. Where I run into trouble is with those that have to be so vocal about what they know. Between the contrasting styles of in your face sharing of knowledge by writing blatant "how-to" articles, speeches, classes or seminars, versus writing of moments and making subtle suggestions that, if you follow along, will have greater impacts on your fishing, let's just say that I'm not at the front of the line to spoon feed anyone. Here's my contradiction, however: if I can help someone directly and I know that I am helping them personally, I will certainly go out of my way to help or share in whatever way as to have impact, regardless of if I have to share talent or knowledge, so long as I don't have to don't have to be publicly seen as doing so.

The motivations behind the sharing of talent and knowledge is what I first look to. Someone who wants to run and control things, has a Meyers-Briggs type personality that screams in your face teacher, perhaps has glaring shortcomings in fly fishing or perhaps has a desperate need to be the center of attention - all these and other psychological factors play a role in who shares what. I'm personally so much more intrigued by discussion of the person behind the talent or knowledge than the talent or knowledge itself. It may be wonderful that you caught an 11 pound brown trout, but what drove your desire to do so, what is it about you that provided that opportunity in your life - as opposed to pursuing playing an instrument in a local band? And if someone wrote about that 11 pound brown, why did they share it from the perspective of how good a fisherman they are, for example, when it is patently obvious that the psychology driving that talent is a far more interesting discussion? To whom? Of course, my question would be quickly dismissed or misunderstood by many who have the personality that simply want to know what size a fly is needed to catch that fish in our photos. Are any of these perspectives more right or wrong? Does it matter who shares what, who knows more than the next person, who's caught more or bigger trout? Why are we motivated to share? Further why do some compare how the next person shares and why, or that another has gained a platform to share, or why do some go further and contemplate the politics behind how that platform was gained?

Talent and knowledge that bring success are fun to discuss for some. Some are to me, some certainly aren't. I had Paul Brandt in my boat last summer and our conversation about his music lasted about a minute while our discussion about this type of thing lasted 4 days. I had Glen Sather and Harry Sinden in my boat and while I hero worshipped memories of days gone by as an Oilers' fan, I was able to gain perspective into who the men behind the memories are. I had a social worker and his son from the USA whom I could have discussed life with for a week. At Easter, I had a great discussion with a brother in law all afternoon of his talent and knowledge as an Anglican minister, yet wound up more fascinated at his deeper relationship with a shelf stocker in Edmonton with whom he has such discussions often.

Behind the numbers of deemed success hide the state of being. I recall vividly my most successful days for the numbers of achievement, sure. But when I think of those times, I find myself looking at who I was then, what drove me to that moment. If I fondly recall the moment, I think of who I was, what I enjoyed most, and enjoy many facets. If I recall it unfavorably, I think of who I was, what was motivating a negative side of "me", and I contemplate its impact, remind myself that it may or may not still be part of me, and continue to encourage myself to seek growth in that area by taking ownership of "me", being a good steward of "me" as I pertain to myself and interact with others, so that I am a better version of "me" moving forward.

None of this really matters to anyone. It is far less valuable and far more valuable to some than others. It is more on the money and yet completely unrelated to and unimportant to fly fishing. And it really gets off the track of why I wrote so much "I" in a previous blog post, yet nails that discussion right on the X. It's truly fascinating to me that those who read this, contemplate such things have likely done so many times themselves on far deeper levels - for them. Meanwhile, those who came to the Fly Fish Alberta blog to read up about the stonefly hatch have long clicked off this link. Sorry about that. I just thought sharing this was of greater meaning than telling you all how good I am at shooting 100 foot casts on 2/3 of a rod. But, maybe that's just me.

Have a great weekend.