(a) Short answer: There are no rules. Read and write a lot to build your intuitive understanding of narration.
(b) Long answer:
To understand the rules of writing, let us look at language.
People learn and speak their mother tongue without ever consulting a grammar or dictionary. In fact, language existed before any grammar was ever written.
Now how did the first grammar come into existence? Did God give the First Linguist a sacred tablet with stone carved grammatical rules, warning that you will go to hell if you break them? No. Linguists observed the verbal behavior of people and tried to the best of their ability to deduce the underlying rules that they suspected must govern a language.
The important words here are: "tried", "deduce" and "suspected". It is really, really important to note that not all linguists believe that there actually is such a thing as "grammar". It is equally important that those linguists that believe in grammar or find the concept of grammar helpful in analysing human verbal behavior do not agree on how this grammar works. The first grammars were created for Classical Latin and Ancient Greek, and the grammatical systems derived from those languages where then imposed on other languages that have little or no relation to Latin or Greek. Recently linguists have proposed grammatical systems that have a fundamentally different structure from Latin grammar (with its cases, declensions and so on). For example, is one linguist, Ulrich Engel, who claims that German does not have a tempus system (past, present and future)! What he means with this need not concern us here, but it serves to show that grammar is a model for how people think that language might work, and that there are several competing models. All, we should note, for the same observed linguistic behavior.
So what role does grammar play in the actual production of language by its speakers? The answer is: none. People who speak English or any other language do not know grammar. They do not understand what they do, and attempting to understand it does not make them better speakers. In fact I have found that completely ignoring grammar and vocabulary when you want to learn a language helps you to learn it better! I tried to learn Latin by learning Latin grammar and lists of Latin words with their German translations, but I never learned Latin. On the other hand, I stopped learning English grammar when I was 14 years old and instead started reading English novels, listening to English songs, and watching English tv. What you read here today is the result of that immersion. English is my second language, I have absolutely no idea of English grammar, but I still speak and write it reasonably well.
Now what does this have to do with the so called "rules of (literary) writing"? I'm sure you already know: The rules of writing are not God given, but were deduced from written texts in an attempt to identify the underlying "narrative grammar". This attempt was lead by the modernistic belief that there actually is such a set of rules governing writing. Post-modern theory, fluent since about the middle of the 20th century, on the other hand believes that such rules do not exist. Neither in narration nor in grammar.
Of course texts are not random and it is not true that "everything goes". There are unreadable texts, there are annoyingly bad texts. But still, what makes good, readable, fun texts, is not the result of following a set of rules.
But why? To understand this, let us look at how you learn to draw.
There are many books and courses that attempt to teach to anatomically correct figure drawing by teaching you about proportions and how the human body can be simplified to geometrical forms such as balls, tubes or angular blocks. Students are supposed to learn that the body is 8 heads high and then construct the body by following certain rules of construction. The result of such attempts is invariably boring and stiff. The figures look correct, yet lifeless, like puppets.
Now there is another way to learn to draw. This involves the student drawing, without any rules, what he sees. Over and over and over again, for many thousands of hours. His first drawings will be abominable, and many will be discouraged and either give up drawing or switch to the other system, which gives quicker results. But for those that stick to this method, there will come a moment, when things suddenly "click". Almost from one day to the next their drawing look lifelike and true-to-life.
The same goes for speaking a language. Children (or adult learners) try to repeat what they hear, and they make many mistakes. But suddenly something "clicks" for them and they stop making those mistakes.
Writing is the same.
You can try to learn writing by following the rules (the grammar, the proportions), but what you write will be lifeless and stiff.
Or you can simply read and write, read and write, read and write, over and over and over again, until things suddenly "click" and your texts start to be literature.
It is said that experts need to train 10.000 hours. This is independent of the discipline. There is no shortcut.
Of course, sometimes a gammar book, proportion sheet or creative writing course can give you a feedback on your speaking, drawing or writing that helps you see in which direction you might want to practice. But beyond that, they are not necessary and largely a distraction.