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.

关于大规模暴行的美学表现形式的讨论倾向于集中在一种特定形式上-暴行寓言-通过个体主角的叙述来表现出集体的恐怖。本文概述了暴行寓言的一些局限性，然后通过对卢旺达针对图西族的种族灭绝的顺序代表的两个例子，考察了表示集体恐怖的另一种形式：序列：朱莉安·奥科特·比泰克的诗集《100 Days》和旺格奇·穆图的摄影随笔＃100天。我认为，这种序列通过强迫观众面对连续的多重，亲密的损失肖像，提供了一种与暴行寓言完全不同的概念，来对大规模暴力进行概念化。与寓言不同，该序列不需要听众从单数向集体推断，因为多个排序可独立执行个体与集体之间的联系。我还建议，暴行的顺序可以通过邀请观众以一种新的形式继续该顺序，从而激发协作和积极性，而这种新形式在原始作品结束的地方就可以继续进行，这是由于顺序形式对封闭的抵抗所致。