I think the timing of something needs adjusting…
First panel completes the description of the first year.
Second-through fourth panel describes the next year.
Second half of the fourth panel says “year after year” … “children kept going missing” implying at least/i> two and probably more years.
So at least 4 or 5 years.
The fifth panel says “the third year in a row”. So have we gone back to the actual third disappearance (i.e. between the two sentences in the fourth panel), or were there unmentioned years where no one disappeared?
Without some sort of adjustment, it just doesn’t flow very well, imo.
Maybe just taking out the second sentence in the fourth panel would fix it…
Panels 4 & 5: Which one disappeared?
it’s specified on the next page, but it’s the little girl on the right.
Did you mean to say “boy” or “left”?
leffft!
I think the timing of something needs adjusting…
First panel completes the description of the first year.
Second-through fourth panel describes the next year.
Second half of the fourth panel says “year after year” … “children kept going missing” implying at least/i> two and probably more years.
So at least 4 or 5 years.
The fifth panel says “the third year in a row”. So have we gone back to the actual third disappearance (i.e. between the two sentences in the fourth panel), or were there unmentioned years where no one disappeared?
Without some sort of adjustment, it just doesn’t flow very well, imo.
Maybe just taking out the second sentence in the fourth panel would fix it…
ah yes. I have now fixed it to more accurately convey the passage of time as I intended (I edited the third year business out of the 5th panel)