Been tagged for this. Writing according to rules (also cf. Oulipo) has always seemed a relief to me, probably from some super-ego pressure I can't recognise without Lacanian analysis. In fact, one reason I have such a great affection for academic conventions is they provide exactly these rules - and also they incarnate some generic models that I find appealing (of course run through with all the micro- and macro- corruptions that disable these mechanisms). My suspicion is that often "experimental" is just plain sloppy, and even valorised experimental modes (like Derrida's "novel" The Postcard) demonstrate to me that (a) I'd prefer a "proper" book, and (b) It is really difficult to do, and can easily lead to a banal stabilisation of the "experimental".
The first problem is that I don't have five people do send it on to (this is starting to bring back memories of school..). To get round this, in the spirit of Wyndham Lewis (everyone laughs or no one laughs), I'm making a hystericising Lacanian call that anyone who wants in can identify their own two most common stylistic or rhetorical ploys and then write a post without them.
On the two demands on me:
Hmmm, tricky - perhaps to write a completely affirmative post might be the solution (which fills me with horror).
Easy, except I really like footnotes - to use the trite commonplace they function as the unconscious of the text. I'm also one of those people who enjoys reading footnotes before reading the main text. In the case of my current reading this mode of reading is suitable due to the fact that the footnotes make up an almost parallel book... (still, it's a very interesting book, and very good value as well for an academic book - £8.50)