The sequence form of accounting for atrocity

Abstract

Discussions of aesthetic representations of mass atrocity have tended to focus on a particular form—the atrocity allegory—that figures a collective horror through the narrative of an individual protagonist. This essay outlines some of the limits of the atrocity allegory and then examines an alternative form of denoting collective horror, the sequence, through two examples of sequential representation of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda: Juliane Okot Bitek’s poetry collection 100 Days and Wangechi Mutu’s photography essay #100Days. I argue that the sequence offers a radically different method of conceptualizing mass violence than the atrocity allegory by forcing the audience to confront multiple, intimate portraits of loss in quick succession. Unlike the allegory, the sequence does not require the audience to extrapolate from the singular to the collective, as the plurality of sequencing performs that link between individual and collective on its own. I furthermore suggest that the atrocity sequence inspires collaboration and activism by inviting audiences to continue the sequence in a new form where the original work ends, a continuation made possible by the sequence form’s resistance to closure.