I realize and am quick to admit that what I may think is absurd when it comes to dishing out writing rules might not be agreeable to publishing professionals. Does that change my mind? Nevah . . .
I will also agree to a certain value in establishing writing rules in order to direct those who failed to learn - or were never taught in today's public school systems - what is proper grammar, the basics of English, literature, constructing essays, term papers, stories, and book reports. And the difference between formal "proper" grammar and the spirit of writing fiction which includes working dialogue for the novel's timeline, can contain slang expressions, and, if contemporary, does not rely heavily on the lack of contractions.
I think it's absurd to require certain eliminations as if there is never a need for particular elements of style, words, situations, etcetera. Prologues, for example, are said to be useless. Adverbs as well. And multiple other "requirements" to get a manuscript past the initial reader. To insist upon a certain uniformity in writing quashes the opportunities for writers to demonstrate unique styles and express atypical voices. To demand adherence to a set of rules decimates originality and instead creates predictable, boring literature.
Which is absurd.
Father, so much in this world is absurd. Sometimes it's hard to look past it, ignore it, combat it, and sift through it to find and embrace the beauty and truth. We're desperate for you, Lord.