The article is a little fuzzy -
"In the wake of Flappy Bird's demise, rumors spread. Nguyen had committed suicide."
The article is a little fuzzy -
"In the wake of Flappy Bird's demise, rumors spread. Nguyen had committed suicide."
I just shared this story with 3 people who only know OF him, all 3 of them replied with their condolences and then we found consolation in his humor about CounterStrike. As a reporter I would think there should be some importance in leaving zero room for misintepretation regarding somebody's well-being.
Is that wrong?
In the wake of Flappy Bird's demise, rumors spread. Nguyen
had committed suicide. Nintendo was suing him. He'd received
death threats. His refusal to speak fueled the speculation
even more.
It's a list of the rumors that were going around, and is terminated by a statement about his refusal to speak (at the time) which strongly implies that the suicide rumor was, well, just a rumor.Anyway, no sense in nit-picking but I would like to see a couple words rearranged. I really think he's a good guy and he seems to be someone worthy of the industry's admiration.
We need many, many more people like him in this world. (from what I know about him)
In the wake of Flappy Bird's demise, rumors spread:
Nguyen had committed suicide; Nintendo was suing
him; he'd received death threats. His refusal to
speak fueled the speculation even more.
But their approach has more literary force, so I think what they did was a reasonable author's choice, not an editing error.The reporter talking about going to meet him, and how that Nguyen has agreed to share his story with Rolling Stone for the first time. It ends with Nguyen saying (present tense) that he's good now and talking about what he'll do in the future.
I just don't see how somebody could read this story other than as an interview with a living person.