I think my comments to our previous two posts on this topic reveal that I am somewhat sceptical about all the 'rules' that seem to be floating around. Makes me wonder who invented them all. It also seems that there are as many variations to the rule as there are actual rules. As a result, I think that some would-be writers spend more time agonising over the do's and don'ts than over the actual story.
I wrote my novel 'The Measure of Love' before I had discovered any of the rules from writers' loops or from my critique partners. It probably breaks all the rules - sentences too long, telling rather than showing, too many adverbs, too many 'ing' words etc. Okay, it was rejected - but the reason given was that too much backstory slowed down the pace (which I agreed with, by the way!). But nothing to do with any of the rules. On the contrary, the editor said I had "an enjoyable and engaging writing style.' Adverbs and all!
Now I'm wondering whether, in my newly-acquired awareness of and efforts to avoid the usual 'pitfalls', I've actually lost that enjoyable and engaging style. But no, there are still times when I break the rules (consciously now rather than unknowingly) simply because it feels right to me. I usually know, instinctively somehow, when my writing 'flows' and when it doesn't.