If there is one central thesis that has emerged from the above examination of the link between trauma aesthetic and humanist ethic in late modernity it is this: such an aesthetic is workable only to the extent that it maintains a balance between a redemptive evocation of human singularity in extreme pain, and respect for civic pluralism/discrepant affiliations rather than sectarian and identitarian ends. As we saw from our analysis of the two creative works, there are generic variations in maintaining this balance. Whether they ultimately succeed in ‘making sense’ of the horror of the Rwandan genocide depends as much on their aesthetic sensitivity to their respective genres and media as on their avowed moral commitment to tell the story of Rwanda to the wider world. What is definitely not ethically and aesthetically viable in this age of shared terror is silence.