Example: Within the first few pages of your novel you are supposed to introduce the main character and the main conflict. Then you are supposed to work backwards to catch the read up on any background information they may need. I can see why this formula works, it get you off to an exciting start and sets up the ending. But I've seen my faorite authors break this rule, requiring us to sit through some lead in while they build up to the true conflict.

Many times, the "Rules of Writing" are things newer writers must do in order to get past the "newness" barrier and to convince editors and readers that they really can write stuff worth reading.

Also, once you have followed the Rules, you should have a better understanding of how they work and why they are Rules, and you should be able to see how they can be successfully stretched or bent as the story requires.

Concerning the "main character in the first few pages" rule, I'd say there is some latitude here. You might introduce "a main character" who is not the hero. Tom Clancy's first novel, The Hunt for Red October opens by introducing Marko Raimus, not Jack Ryan. Raimus is certainly one of the progtagonists and a central figure of the story, but Ryan is destined to be Clancy's ongoing "hero" and you don't meet him until many pages have gone by. It would have been very difficult to tell that story without introducing Raimus first.

I can also imagine times when you would want to introduce an antogonist as the first main character. If your story can't begin until a crime is committed, you might begin by showing the crime.

It would be nice if those who enumerate these rules would specify their prices, both how so and how much. Ah well....

With the introduce your protagonist rule, I assume the main issue is confusion. If you delay, the reader will not understand what form the story is taking. This can be counter-acted by being very clear about that. Maybe the issue is that the reader will feal disconnected without a clear emotional tie -- or torn between two ties later. Again, this can be treated, with sufficient skill.

Of course you can break the rules. But I bet all of those authors that you read, who are breaking all the rules, didn't do so on their first books.

Some of these rules are written down in various places, but they're basically just the "norms" that people suggest you follow as a first-time novelist.

For instance, you have a better chance of publishing a first-time novel if:

a) it is 80-95k words,
b) it is in an already established genre,
c) it is not written in a really bizarre tense (i.e. second-person imperative),

The same is true for a central conflict exposed in the first few pages. It doesn't have to be the main conflict...and so on and so forth.

Kathleen has a point about established authors sometimes becoming a bit more sloppy. On the other hand, I often find that many writers write far better second, third, fourth, etc. books than first books. But usually after about fifteen or twenty books, there is a serious problem with quality control (the central problem is actually in the feedback loop, either in the reception or in the generation of feedback...).

But again, most rules about what not to do are limited in important ways. For instance, I wouldn't say "avoid flashbacks". I have flashbacks all the time, and I'm not talking about my writing. I think that most people have flashbacks, otherwise how would you be able remember things? I would say that unless the POV character is actually having a flashback at that point in the story, then a flashback is a POV violation, which it is.

You can catagorize errors by what aspect of the narrative they affect, and thus know the price for breaking the rules. POV exists to give the audience a place from which to recieve the story. First person artificial account creates the illusion that the story actually happened to someone (or at least that someone is saying it actually happened). You violate that POV, even a little, and the price is that the story doesn't fool anyone, the audience laughs and derides it as a fake. Third person limited omniscient is designed to create sympathy with a particular character in the story, by explaining the story from that character's POV. Each POV violation reduces the level of attachment the audience feels with that character, which reduces the personal investment of the audience in the story...but a single violation won't destroy the story.

Structure--or plot--gives the audience a reasonable certainty that the story will make sense, and that all the information revealed by the narrator is meaningful. If you have a lot of dead-end plot devices and throw-away characters, then the audience will realize that they have no reason to pay attention to any given scene or character...and they'll stop paying attention. If they really care about your story despite the lack of overall structure, then they might skip to the end and read the last page...maybe.

The narrative organization serves the purpose of giving the reader information in an orderly fashion. Most stories are chronological, but sometimes narrative uses a different logical organization. But if information is not presented in a logical order at all, then the reader will be confused.

I thought it had to be THE main character and THE main conflict. But I've seen a lot of books work when simply a main character or a main conflict is introduced.