My first point is one of disagreement. The essay titled “The Image Sequence; or, Moving Modernist Pictures” states that comics are easily read, creating a “lucid, easily comprehensible visual narrative”. In the Chute’s piece, however, one graphic artist by the name of Sacco refutes this claim. Sacco’s pieces often times require an extensive decoding process due to the comic’s confusing nature which makes the reader unable to glance from the text to the image with ease. The rhythm of Saccos work is purposely disruptive to the reader’s eye in order to make the reader think. My second point is one of congruence. Chute says that comics contain “double vision,” meaning that both the words and the images in a comic strip tell stories. “The Image Sequence” essay agrees, stating that a comic strip, complete with text and imagery, can read like a novel. Lastly, one question I have about “An art of Tensions” by Charles Hatfield is: What exactly is meant by the tension of sequence v. surface?