[SPOILERS AHEAD] Once I realized what THE DAY OF CREATION was “about,” I was a little surprised it took me so long to get there. I mean, it's right in the damn title. But, I got about halfway through the book before it occurred to me the whole thing is an allegory for the creative process. There’s Mallory at a dry lake bed in an town nearly devoid of people. He wants to fill the lake bed, but what, exactly, he's doing about it is a little unclear. He's inert, not doing much of anything really. There is, however, two guerrilla armies fighting each other and threatening to kill him from time to time. These warring factions seem to be far too interested in him, as well. Like, what are they fighting about and why do they keep coming back to him? He then “creates” the river, which was a complete accident not even caused by himself, but by a tractor uprooting an old tree. Though it wasn't even his own action, he proceeds to take full credit for having created this river in the middle of the Sahara. In fact, he goes on to "own" it by purchasing it. And of course he names the river after himself, the Mallory. He then goes back and forth between wanting to kill the river at its source and wanting it to thrive (i.e., the "struggle" of the artist). And of course the river, along with guerrilla soldiers, a filmmaker, and a floating brothel of women, attempt to kill him. But Mallory, himself, becomes determined to “kill” the river, i.e., finish the process. Meaning, the book, as far as I can tell, which, I suppose, is also like killing off a little bit of yourself. As soon as he does "kill" the river, the book ends, pretty much back where it started. But, if the whole thing is an allegory, that begs the question: Did Ballard think Mallory’s inappropriate relationship with the twelve- or thirteen-year-old Noon could be explained away because she was merely a symbol of his id or the driving force behind the creative process? Perhaps. I think it was a poor choice and needlessly distracted from the book, though. Why throw that monkey wrench into the works? I'm sure if he were here he would have an explanation, but still. Of course, Mallory was never a likable character and maybe he chose to have the id represented in such a way to ensure we never fully embrace this conflicted, narcissistic character. Anyway, there probably is a lot more to be dissected here, but I won’t because the book never fully grasped me. I'm not really interested in putting too much more time into this book than I already have. For me, I had a hard time envisioning a lot of this book. Ballard has a particular way with imagery in some books that simply doesn’t work for me. I can’t get the picture in my head. I’m trying to figure out what exactly it is, as others don’t seem to have the same problem. But, for me, I’ve had a hard time running the “movie in my head” for at least a small handful of his books that I’ve read. I think in some books he gets over-specific. For instance, in a single paragraph he’ll say that something is 30 yards that way while in the east, another 200 yards is something else. In my brain, I'm trying to get the picture of distance between subject and object while juggling everything else the sentence/paragraph demands of me, and I get lost. And meanwhile there’s all this vegetation I’ve never heard of and all these topographical terms that mean nothing to me because they’re too specific. Like, if it's a hill, man, just call it a damn hill. Etc etc. I'd bet if Ballard could have used the scientific terms for things, he would have! And, yes, I could stop every other sentence and look the word up, but at some point it’s just like, um, no. I love Ballard but some of his books seem to get stuck in second gear. This is one of them. Still, it has the requisite weirdness, the typical Ballardian obsessions of psyche and society, etc etc, and the poetic language (in this book, perhaps a little more forced than usual). As well, this book may work best if read in a few sittings. I took way too long with it. In any case, I'll keep plodding away through Ballard's bibliography.