It is true that most modern works on angling lack personality, depth, and texture. Consider the opening paragraphs from H.P. Well's "Fly Rods and Fly Tackle" - 1885"
FISH-HOOKS, AND THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN THEIR
EFFICIENCY.
THE hook is the foundation of the Angler's Art: it
is the point of attack. Weakness or inefficiency here
can be aided little by the art of him who handles it, and
not at all by any excellence of tackle elsewhere. The
most skilled can but strike at the proper moment, and
with the proper degree of force.
What senses a fish has, and to what degree they are
developed, has been the subject of frequent discussion;
and while there may be and still is some doubt among
scientists as to what he does possess, there can be but
one opinion among anglers: that he is, at least at times,
altogether destitute of the sense of propriety. Without
consultation with the angler, and without the slightest
deference to his wishes, he rises to the fly or ignores
it, as to him seems best ; and when .he does come he
comes in his own way, seizing the fly with resolution
or diffidence, and in a manner over which the angler
has no control.
Among modern writers, only, IMO, A.J. McClane presented the subject of a hook or a fly with the finesse expected of all the earlier writers. Our standards in literature have coarsened and we are limited in attention-span to the sound-bite... or so modern editors believe. Try to get a semi-colon past an editor of a major fishing magazine here in the US. It can't be done, their eyes are always alert for complex sentence structure, ever ready to expunge it; no matter how it might improve the texture of the piece.
Line drawings are another loss we have suffered. Illustration was, until the 1960's and the introduction of ready color photography, a delightful addition to any angling prose. Alas, no more. But we still treasure it.