OFF THE DEEP END
How on earth did you make it to this page? Well, since you are here, you might take a look around. But if you are easily offended or even worse, easily bored, hit the Back button on your browser NOW. It is not for everyone, so we did not go out of our way to make this page easily accessible. If we find a way to bury it even deeper in the site, we will make it even less accessible.
This page is where we talk about ideas that would generally be considered off the deep end. Now we are not talking about insanity or perversion or anything like that. In fact some would find the subjects boring, not deep. Heck with them.
We have been accused of using too many esoteric words, like 'esoteric', and of being pretentious, arrogant and all that rot. Those of you who understand will know we are not operating this project at too high a level, but too low. This is not because we tried to dumb this web down or anything like that, but rather because we were not smart enough to do any better.
So there are many things we are not able to do even when we can imagine them, and many more things, of a certainty, that we have not imagined. There are also a few things that must wait on the technology to catch up before they will be feasible. So this page is the place where we will ramble on a bit, in general terms, about what we imagine and how we feel. It is not a part of the website proper, but rather like a sticky note stuck to an album cover by a strange friend.
Relationship as an art form.
This web is our attempt to make the drawing of relationships into an art form, so that knowledge and information and images both verbal and visual unite into an artistic context. Of course, we know we are only scratching the surface of the possibilities. Further, we know our approach to using this technique is only one of a multitude of approaches. The theme of the album series, which basically takes in everything (the theme of course, not our tiny work), tends to obscure this fact. The principle can be every bit as properly applied to a small slice of life.
Let us take a novel as an example. All the characters of any importance have a history. The setting has its own context. The era has a context. And so on. Make biographies of the characters that can be accessed by context sensitive linking and you open up whole realms of communication about this character's motives. Go into as much detail as you want about the setting and its history, and the same with the time in which the novel takes place. A good novelist does this kind of research. Why not make that research provide a set of hyper footnotes? Write songs about events in the novel. Make the novel serve as the core of a motion picture script, so that when you see someone do something in the 'movie' you can go to the novel and find out what they were thinking. Each type of media has things it communicates well, and others it communicates poorly or not at all. Communicate the story in every way possible, because even then existential isolation will only allow a small subset of the story to reach the other side, to make its way into the mind of the 'audience'.
What makes this process work relates back to the 'Kuleshov Effect' of montage, where a sequence of film clips produce their meaning by their relationship with each other. The idea here is that a few frames of film becomes a 'letter' in the 'word' of the sequence. In other words, the individual frames do not have their real meaning in isolation. The hypertext approach takes the psychological and perceptual effects produced by the montage and opens it in all directions. This is true especially because now the montage does not need to be sequential. Nor does it need to be a momentary effect, ie. an effect requiring motion. The deep web is formed of things that will each have to be pondered, then pondered together.
A significant problem is the depth of content required by this process. It is completely insufficient to spend a month in the studio cutting tracks and a week making a music video before tossing the work out to the world. Done to the full, there is no current art form that rivals it for complexity. A movie is just a piece. Ninety nine songs are just a piece. A novel is just a piece. And all must both stand alone and tie together. Who knows if we are smart enough to do it?
Producing enough material to simply demonstrate the concept (and in the time left from our day jobs and families) has been the work of many years. Doing it basically alone, with tiny resources, inventing and borrowing techniques all along the way, and doing all this under the cloud of doubt that hangs over every artistic work before it has been appreciated by an audience, has made this somewhat of an ordeal. Even if this approach takes hold, and we are able to bring the vision of a number of people together in the way a studio brings people together to make a movie, the process will not be quick.
Perhaps the most difficult requirement is that the story itself be worthy of the effort. The standard of depth and quality is so high that each story should be a classic. A classic album or movie or novel is a rare thing. All these and more, classics at the same time? Very difficult. Yet the world is full of great stories waiting to be told, though you would not think so watching most made for tv movies.
Then the same type of effort is required to perceive the work. It will not be anything like sitting down for two hours and watching a film. In our speeding culture, is there anyone left who wants a work they can chew on for months instead of fast food art? It will certainly not be the mainstream of the population. Will the rest be enough of a market to support the work? Only time will tell.
Computer Video As Clickable Bitmap
The stream of images in a video can take on a new life when they are run on a computer. It will be possible soon, if it is not already, to tie a hypertext link to an object in a video, in particular if the objects in the video were computer generated so the computer can already distinguish among the objects, as is the case with CAD files. This opens a new realm of interaction. Instead of a static page of links, you can tie these to a moving stream, in essence presenting links to the entire contents of your site in a few moments. If things are going too quickly, the user can slow or stop the stream.
While this would have applications in the business world, what excites me are the artistic possibilities. Imagine watching a movie where you could click on something you see and learn more about it. Why is this car moving right to left in the scene? Is this a tiremark on the street? What is the offscreen history of this character? Why is this particular book lying on the killer's coffee table? In this kind of work, everything you see could have a meaning or history. Given a high level of sophistication, we could even ask different characters questions.
Further, such a format plays right into the idea of an interactive movie with multiple plot lines. For instance, it could be set up so that we 'follow around' any of the characters in a scene, essentially becoming these characters. Were the overall plot up to the complexity of a good novel, or higher, an entire dramatic series could come as a single package. We could follow the character we wanted for as long as we wanted, then choose to follow someone else we run across. A great deal of skill could be put into plotting out where the different characters cross one another's paths, thus defining the places where we could jump to a different story line. Another approach could be to allow you to change some personality traits of some of the characters, so that they react differently to situations and thus change the plot. This approach is far more difficult to do well, but it opens the way to having a plot that even the writer did not understand in total.
The idea has been around in one form or another for quite some time. The problem though has been more artistic than technological. What might make a good motion picture might be dry dust as an interactive movie, and the reverse. The few attempts to do something like this have fallen far short of serious artistic quality in terms of the story and characterizations. It is going to take writers some time before they learn to think in terms of this media, and even more time for the people who pay the bills to figure out they need to challenge the artists to leap higher, take greater risks, instead of holding them down to another G. Island rerun.
As an aside, in our feeble culture "taking risks" in the artistic sense has been puddled down to how pornographic or violent or perverse a work can be. Since the media mindset is that sex and violence sells, how can anyone call peddling it risky? Artistic risk comes from trying to communicate in a way that may be misunderstood because the new method of communication has the potential to eventually communicate better than do existing methods. For us this website is such an artistic risk, because it has certainly been misunderstood by some people. But if you 'get it', this site communicates in some ways that are fresh. The risk we take is that too few people will understand, and like it, to keep this operation going.
The writing of several of our songs is certain to be viewed as evidence of contemptible arrogance by some people. In fact, some will surely consider this entire band to be a pretentious exercise.
We do NOT view ourselves as wildly talented. That is why we work so hard at this. To compete, we must work harder than those who are. I do not think we should be labeled as arrogant, because we see our faults quite well. I guess you could disagree with this reasoning in that I should not be writing if I know I am not a Keats or Tolstoy. Oh well. I am opinionated, but I think anyone who has thought about an issue should have some opinion about that issue. Otherwise, what does thinking about it gain you? I think you should try to be right about everything so you at least have a shot at being right about something. Naturally, I think my opinions are right, but at least in part because I try to discard opinions that are wrong. To me, arrogance is the refusal to reexamine ones opinions.
I have a problem with two groups of people. The first contains those who hold no opinions. I do not know how they get through life. The second contains those who hold opinions they will not defend. This seems to break down into a handful of reasons. They do not think the other person is worth the time it would take to set them straight. Or they think the other person is too narrow minded to listen to reason. Or they are afraid the other person will show up their opinions. Or they think the other person is incapable of understanding their position. (If you disagree with this list, please set me straight)
If I were arrogant, I would assume my ideas are so profound very few are even capable of understanding, let alone willing, and thus would not bother to speak. The fact that I am writing this shows such is not the case.
If I were insecure, I would try to gain status in my own eyes by attempting to get you to swallow my opinions whole. I would use invalid proofs like, "I must be right because Bobby Bob the famous baseball player agrees with me," and other such rot. But you might object that we include quotes from many, usually famous, people. In fact, this is a bit of humility. When I have learned something from someone, and they said it better than me, is it not right to acknowledge the debt and to utilize the well turned phrasing? Famous thinkers have often been utterly wrong, so my agreement with them on specific points does not make either of us right. Further, several quotes we use are from people with whom we disagree, so that we can deal with strong opponents rather than paper tigers.
I believe if reasonable people are willing to lay out both their opinions and the reasons why they hold them, for the purpose of finding the "right" opinion, the worst that will result will be specific disagreement. And it may be that someone's opinion is moved away from error and toward truth. Quite often what is discovered in the course of such an encounter is that the disagreement has been a misunderstanding of the subject under discussion, and that in reality there is little effective difference of opinion. i.e., a communication problem rather than antagonistic ideologies.
The real barrier to mutual understanding (not agreement) is attitude. If the parties refuse to communicate, both to speak and to listen, then one or all involved care nothing for Truth. Which of course returns us to the two groups with which I have difficulty, and who almost certainly view me as an arrogant jerk.
What does this have to do with the Body of Christ? I believe our failure to hold fast to the Scripture about being ready at all times to give an account for the hope that is in us to be one of the Church's greatest failings. Every believer is commanded to be ready to answer for the Truth, not just the paid professionals of our organizations. Agrippa was almost persuaded. Today we rarely seem to even start persuading.
Related to this is that there is no Scripture of private interpretation. The same Holy Spirit is within each believer to turn the same Logos into Rhema. The Word can be known. The Bible can be understood. Do not fall into the modern dishwater ideology of everyone having equally valid opinions. God is not the author of confusion, so if we see confusion about the Word, it does not come from God. Someone is right and someone is wrong if two people hold irreconcilable views of the Word. Unless, of course, they are both wrong.
Look at the universe around you. There are specific truths that can be applied, for example, to make a pile of material heavier than air fly. All science is based on the belief that the cosmos has rules that can be discerned and applied. But in an era where science is viewed as little short of a religion, we have an ideology about personal belief that is exactly the opposite. Science is all about moving away from error and toward truth, but our ethics have degenerated to the point where we cannot even acknowledge the existence of truth and error, wrong and right. This is the tragic irony of our modern age. This ties back to my point about those who refuse to hold opinions.
Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword; confrontation. The confrontation between truth and error. I have found it impossible to really know something until I have defended it against a worthy adversary. (John Stuart Mill wrote a good piece about this) That is where I am confronted by the holes in my understanding, which should send me back to The Source to have my knowledge of the Truth repaired so I may be a worker who need not be ashamed of my handling of the Sword.
On our own, most people will take an opinion ready made to save ourselves the effort of building it from the ground up. The general rule is that a confrontation between ideologies turns into a confrontation between people, so most people flee confrontation. Yet condemning an ideology is only condemning the person who holds to it if you believe that person to be incapable of change from wrong to right. This ties back to my point about those who refuse to defend their opinions.
Three Dimensional User Interface
The current (1998) generation of graphic user interfaces are pitiful. Besides being more complex than the Space Shuttle, and less reliable, the entire approach is crude, dull and archaic. A flat desktop? Does that actually resemble the way you do things? It is a clear reflection of the business roots of computers that we interact with them as if the real world involved nothing more than sitting at a desk. What will replace it someday? It depends upon what user group you are considering. Here, we are going to consider the power users, the people who can organize their thought process.
It will not be speech. Talking is slow slow slow slow. By the time you speak two words you can have clicked on ten hot spots. For taking dictation or for people who will never be comfortable with these infernal machines, this may prove an important interface. But the future of computers does not rest on either this process nor these people. Talking is also imprecise. It will always be imprecise. Imagine trying to place some kind of pointer at a specific location on an image by talking and you will see what we mean. Speech control is a special purpose tool for the input of words and for situations where, for whatever reason, you need to use the computer but keep your hands free.
It will not use a mouse. That is too primitive a tool.
It will not even be hypertext, at least not as we currently know it. That is just a way of arranging what happens when one uses the current flat desktop interface paradigm.
We will detail out the idea here someday, but for now let us do an overview. One of the primary criteria this essay is going to operate under is that the idea must be something that could be implemented with current technology. For the sake of pushing the envelope, we will assume PC's are faster and have greater storage capacity than they now do, but that seems a pretty tame assumption.
One last aside. It will not be virtual reality, at least not as we now understand this, with headphone and goggle and the like. We do not need to bury ourselves in a computer to use it. Nor is this technology at the level of sophistication that it would require to be the primary day-in, day-out interface. Consider the VR glove for instance. Imagine picking up a cup of coffee with one on and not disturbing your virtual world, not to mention it being awkward. We get on and off the computer dozens of times a day, and something you cannot simply let go is a nuisance.
The interface of the future will be a three dimensional model somewhat like that in the old 'Myst' game. The organizational paradigm will be 'rooms'.
The basic idea is simple. When you get up in the morning, where are you? Usually in your house. That is where the computer will be when it 'wakes up'. If you want to see what the weather is like outside, what do you do? You go to the window and you look outside. If you want to read a book, you go to the bookshelf. If you want to make a call, you go to the telephone.
The idea is that a virtual you is put in a virtual world. There is no need to make the real you feel like you are in the virtual world. Send in your agent and make them do the crawling around.
You make the virtual you move around in the virtual world with a simple, existing device. A joystick. A mouse is a device made for a two dimensional virtual world, and performs no functions a joystick could not be programmed to perform just as easily. If a joystick has the ability to twist on its vertical axis, this feature can be used to turn 'your' head. This frees the tilt of the joystick to be used to move 'you' through your virtual space. Click become a pull of the trigger.
If you want to see something in more detail in the real world, what do you do? You move closer. If you have a project that requires the use of multiple objects, what do you do? You get these objects and put them on your desk / table / workbench. Using such an interface would quickly become obvious, dare we say intuitive, because it mimics what every child does every day. The advantage 'you' would have is that this virtual person would also be able to teleport to any location in your 'world' instantly, or fly over buildings, or walk through walls.
But there is a greater advantage to this interface than merely the obvious nature of its use. Organizing information is wide open. If you want, you could organize your work by hanging 'paintings' on the 'wall' of a particular 'room'. You could put 'folders' in 'file cabinets'. You could stack it on the 'floor'. You could make multiuse rooms, or rooms dedicated to any activity you choose. You could make a room that has hundreds of tools and storage units and workareas and is the size of a stadium. You could make a room that only has bookshelves and is barely bigger than a phone booth. You could make an office building with hundreds of rooms. You could make a city block with a building for each of your customers. You could make a house for each of your friends, and even lay them out like your friends' houses. You could make a globe, a solar system, a galaxy. You get the idea? Compared to this, a desktop with some icons and folders is as primitive as a butter churn.
The real kick is that the only thing holding it back is someone to write the software. It could be running full bore in a few years without depending on any breakthrough inventions. And it would not be so different that people would have a hard time adjusting. In fact, one of the items you could put in a room would be a computer screen that looks and acts just like the one you are using now. But we hope it would be more reliable.
One thing that would open up the cyberworld aspect would be to use vector graphics instead of bitmaps so things are smaller. CAD graphics would be even better, because then all the objects are made of computer discernible components. This really opens things up in terms of the information you can hide inside such a graphic in addition to allowing the 'default' graphic quality to be much higher. Bitmaps are a lowest common denominator solution.
Is not someone going to knock Uncle Bill off his monopoly throne? You could make a few bucks in the process.
The upside down idea behind the Epiphany album connects to Tolstoy and his idea that the king is a slave of history.
It also connects to the Bob Dylan song, "Idiot Wind" where 'everything's a little upside down'.
In Needle's Eye, the image plays on "needle" as relating to Every Deadly Game.
Why do I do this?
If you read this, remember this page is off the beaten track of our website. In this section I am speaking for myself instead of the band.
There have been many times I despaired of Mirror Covenant ever seeing the light of day. Worse, I have long been in turmoil as to whether I have been fooling myself in thinking it is worthy to. Have I been writing all these words only to create something no one wants to hear? Is my judgment so corrupted what I think is good is actually meaningless? Or am I digging into a vein the rest of the world has examined at length and found unworthy of mining, and I am just too ignorant to know this? Has the price I have paid to dig here been for nothing? Right now these doubts remain. And yet....
It is the 'and yet' which keeps me going. I have never found myself to be all that unique, so surely there must be others who feel as I do, who would welcome such an approach to thought, to art.
I started down this road because I wanted to find something worth doing, something high, something deep, something that would 'be worthy of a song'. I found what I believed to be worthy in the pain of my own epiphany, my own awakening. I wanted to make an art that would have helped me through the pain of sleeping as a child and waking as an adult who did not understand the significance of the gift of adulthood. An art I have to this day found only in bits and pieces, never whole. I want to make that art whole.
As the dream grew, and things came into place oh so slowly, and the world time and again moved right where it needed to go to make the dream live, I felt I was on the right path. But another part of me has been mocking, asking how I could be on the right path for twenty years without arriving. Twenty years. It seems ridiculous that anything would take twenty years to bear fruit. Surely it means I have missed God somewhere along the way.
Then I think of Moses. Forty years between leaving and returning to Egypt. Then forty years leading a faithless people around in a desert. Then not setting foot in the Promised Land. Oh yes, it is possible for something to properly take twenty years. Yet I also wonder if I have done something to cause me to be denied setting my foot in this realm. Tonight it all seems so near at hand yet so far away. Which is it?
Against all odds, against the doubts, I still believe not only in the dream, but that the dream is even larger than I see. For I believe not only am I not alone in thinking Mirror Covenant's material is good, that there will be others who like it, but that there are also other people presently in obscurity with the same type of dream placed in their heart by God.
It was not idle words when we said we measure our success by how well we open doors for other bands with a similar vision. I know the blackness of the doubts. I know the fear you are a freak. I know what it is to look at the media giants' stranglehold on the keys to the audience. I know what it is to despair at the timidity of these media giants, at their proven track record mentality, at how impossible it seems to even get an audience with these kings. And worse, how much of the dream would be lost in dealing with their kingdom because they would not understand.
So I know what it would mean to me tonight if I were to find this web on the Internet. A kindred spirit! A kindred vision! It would be a gift of such joy I cannot put it into words. I believe Mirror Covenant can give that gift to others still enmeshed in the fears and isolation. I believe there are more groups out there like our than anyone imagines. I believe once this genie leaves the bottle, nothing will put it back.
I believe we are on the brink of a great change in music and art which transcends the trend shifts, like from disco to rock to alternative, the way the lightning transcends the lightning bug (to borrow from Mark Twain). Despite a world that shouts I am nothing, I believe God can use this small person to do great things.
Humanism and Ecclesiastes
If you think humanity is hot stuff, read this. The day you breath your last will most likely not be a good time to hold you up as an example of a god.
Wild Eyed Radical
Christians, pay attention. Black history in America has something to teach us. Not for the reasons, good though they are, which are typically given. No, for the unspeakable, unthinkable reason. Because the social situation blacks and other minorities are still coming out of is where Christians are going.
What kind of wild radical must one be to say this! Sadly, it does not take either a prophet or a radical. Just say "Separation of Race and State" a few times instead of the similar phrase so commonly voiced. Then imagine the outcry were a President or member of Congress to voice this phrase. Imagine a Martin Luther King display being removed from a school by court order to defend this idea. Deny the parallel if you can. Time will prove all.
Are there other objective signs of this process? Perhaps you could consider the Christian media such a sign. In the days of segregation there were black dance troupes, black restaurants, black instances of nearly every aspect of society. It might be objected that this parallel is unjust because the Christian separation has been Christians drawing back from the secular structures rather than being thrown out. That is true, but the question to be asked is why we are pulling back. It is because our beliefs are being trampled, particularly in the public schools.
Further, in the case of the secular media it is in fact precisely because Christians have and continue to be excluded from access that we created our own outlets. A rock band can sign to a major label with the most open worship of the devil or Krishna, but not Jesus. It has often been objected that it is simply a matter of sales. This of course is foolish. There are no bands signed to secular labels whose album sales are below the sales level of openly Christian artists? Hardly.
The area I want to address, among the many this radical statement raises, is how this impacts art. The experience of black artists has been extremely problematic, in many ways a greatly intensified version of the classic artistic dilemma. Do you follow your private muse while your people are being destroyed? If your art becomes political, does it cease to be art, will you destroy your muse? Is the best way you can help your people to follow the private muse? Can you accept the dangers of patron support when the alternative is to be denied a voice? Is art inherently political, so awareness of the political aspect sharpens the art? Should art speak for those who cannot speak, or should it express the artist's personal identity?
The situation for Christian artists is whether to operate as a ministry fulfilling the Great Commission or to make art that shows Christians too are human. Is it selling out to the Man to release albums where Jesus is never mentioned by name? Is success in terms of sales inherently a sell out? Is it fruitless entertainment to have art that is not basically packaged Word? Should Christian artists endorse products? If art expresses the identity of the artist, is that glorifying man instead of God?
The gestalt rock approach is in some respects a reaction to this situation. At the song level, many of the songs are of the personal muse. But the levels of meaning opened by the concept albums and series are more 'political'. This website takes the personal and political aspects of the art and weaves them together in an effort to rise above the personal/political dialectic.
An interesting aside is that blacks cannot recant their race. This will tend to put some iron in ones backbone. You cannot escape the situation, so your only relief is to resist the bigotry. The same is not true for a Christian. Not only is your "condition" invisible, but you can recant. It makes it easier to go along to get along, to "pass".
As a kind of easter egg, we have deliberately not explained some things just to see if people figure them out. It seems likely this may turn out to be a good place to locate the easter eggs. This will at least demonstrate we did not just make up some level of meaning after a fan pointed it out. So with that in mind, here after the Wild Eyed Radical section, we will lay an egg. Sorry, could not help myself.
Predator is in large measure a message to Christians regarding the world for which we must prepare ourselves. Christians can expect to be marginalized (Donner), sacrificed (Wall), abused (Misasa), disenfranchised (Smoke), then finally labeled as enemies of the state (Finest).
You need not be some sort of observant genius to see the shadows of this dehumanization already pass across our faces.
The fact Predator culminates in "Not Flesh & Blood" is not done so we can close with some holy platitude. In the world to come victory cannot be achieved by carnal means. Long before the Beast openly struts his evil on the world's stage, Christians will be villanized until even the Unites States will treat us the way the blood drenched despots of Red China do today.
On the material level there is no escape from governments utilizing the full measure of technology. Those in the U.S. have grown myopic regarding the pressure a government can bring on its population if they have no scruple. And the Beast and his John Baptists will certainly have no scruple. But what is impossible for man is possible for God. We will not prevent the Beast from trying to make himself god. That is the course of the world, and it will fill its destiny to the very last drop of God's wrath. Our job is to set free the captive souls of those who will receive the Word. This job is spiritual. It will be won on our knees in prayer. Any protection from persecution we receive will also be achieved spiritually. You will not shoot your way out of the world's dominion.
The Impossible Moral Standard
Humanism, the philosophy that elevates humanity to the pinnacle of existence, is the core operating belief of our present culture. But is it not interesting that a culture having such a philosophy for humanity in general has such an absolute lack of regard for any particular individual human being? Yet Christianity, which is held to be the outdated (terrible insult in our modern Greek culture that lives for something new) thought that looks down on humanity, places huge value on individual human beings. The great freedom to create one's own morality in practice produces a predatory culture, a rule of the jungle where the strong take the weak, while the 'inhuman' morality of Christianity aims for the opposite.
Is it not ironic that the, "Impossible moral standard," (Dick Gephart, Clinton impeachment proceeding) of marital fidelity is exactly what any particular individual wants from their own particular spouse? It can be no surprise then that violating ones oath of office is considered trivial, given the disregard for the importance of ones marriage vow. In fact, the marriage vow is not only seen as of no consequence, it is actually vowing to hold yourself to an impossibility. If this is the case, Mr. Gephart must believe everyone who speaks the marriage vows is lying, since what they promise is impossible. This is an ideology of the high worth of human beings?
Hang around geneticists long and you will hear this number. It is how much humans are said to be genetically related to chimps. The reason why those who buy into evolution like to raise this is obvious. But it does raise interesting questions.
Does this mean that if you go down a human and a chimp DNA molecule that 98.5% of the time you will find the same atom in the same place? Given the incredible diversity of the human race, who has mapped out every item of our genetic code and the genetic code of chimps in order to be able to make this kind of comparison?
Given that you can DNA fingerprint each individual human being, ie. human genetics have individual patterns, does this mean some humans are more closely related to chimps than others?
As this same kind of percentage, what is the range of variance among human beings? This variance range would cover all the diversity of human beings, from our various heights, weights, eye and hair and skin colors, to our ability to run and jump and dance.
As this same kind of percentage, how closely related are we to whales? To frogs? If we are only 2% related to frogs, this 98.5% number is significant. But if we are 80% related to a trout, this oft repeated percentage is being used to mislead the public, since that would mean a tiny percentage difference makes a huge actual difference. Unless you do not think there is much actual difference between a human being and a trout, in which case you really ought not go fly fishing.