Hey thanks.
-A patella is a bone. A kneecap. The fact that is clearly visible through the ripped pants is very important- it is meant to show that the gentleman is very skinny and to reinforce the term "ectomorph". "Knee" doesn't do the same thing. Plus, I just used "knee" four words before that. Maybe "rather" threw you off my point.
-"thick glasses with heavy plastic frames": I can't think of a more clear way to describe what I'm thinking about. They're literally heavy. Like government issued Marine Corp glasses from the 1960s. Seems like I was getting that across.
-trebled vs. tripled. I'll give you pretentious on this one.
-Rhuemy vs. grinding eyes: you have a very good point here. One's eyes don't really appear to do, or to be both. But watery is just watery, whereas "rheumy" is indicative of a slimy mucous discharge from a filthy, diseased membrane, dripping with virulent pus, spraying and spritzing all over the windows of the Max like arcs of blood at a Louisiana abbatoir. A few hours later, a small child with a flower in her hair will stand in the same seat and press her face and tiny hands against the window. She'll crane her neck to see the Ferris wheel on the waterfront and smear the viscous mess left to right on the glass, and down the front of her overalls. That's rheumy. Watery is like, "oh, I have a touch of allergies today."
-Crusty eye sockets are basically the opposite of rhuemy, but I just couldn't resist the image because it's so gross. The idea, of course, is to attempt to impart a feeling of disgust.
-waves: I should have said "...hit me like a wave". Great edit.
Now, to the real point. First off, let's gloss over the idea that something not written for the average waterhead is "pretentious". I would submit that not one of my reader's [sic] looked up "patella" and thought, "Hmm, weird, I always thought that was called a kneebone!" Attempting to write in plain language specifically so no gibbering mouth breather has to encounter a new word is KGW/ Sarah Palin type thinking. Insulting. There are notable exceptions: Fante, Hemingway, Bukowski, Saroyan. These guys were story tellers who didn't let the words get in the way. I get that.
The real question, then, is what am I trying to accomplish here? Am I trying to be simple and clear, or am I trying to take these syllables out for a spin, maybe kick them around the block a few times? Am I just writing stuff because it sounds bitchin'? Did Shakespeare ever skip a chance to add in some extra descriptors? Did Thompson never beat a phrase to death with a bullwhip and then kick it into the gutter? Shit, Celine used to practically dog himself a grave of words and then just kind of crawl in. Do they cover up shitty story telling? Yep. They sure can. And is there even a story here? No! It's just a description of a guy with dandruff! That's ALL I have! So should I just say:
I saw a skinny guy with thick glasses and knobby knees on the Max. He had ridiculous dandruff
Because that's basically all I have here.
And one last thing: this was not written for submission to your fine publication (I'm guessing tv news or a newspaper), rather it was a result of twenty minutes in a bathtub and two cans of Vortex, a vision of a dandruff dude in my head. Don't overthink things. And I didn't even get to the onion sandwiches!
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your thoughts, and not in an Eddie Haskell kind of way.