More Writing Rules and How I Relate – The Heinlein Five

Last month, I did a series of posts about Elmore Leonard’s Ten Rules of Writing and how I use them. Leonard’s rules are pretty specific and granular and have a lot to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the prose. On the other end of that spectrum, another legendary author also has a set of writing rules that are a more about the process of publishing work than simply writing it (which he assumed you already knew how to do). I’m talking about Robert A. Heinlein, of course, and his famous five rules of writing. These rules come from an essay called “On the Writing of Speculative Fiction“ that was published in Of Worlds Beyond in 1947. It’s an interesting read, if only to get an idea of what writing SFF looked like eighty years ago.

Like I did with Leonard, I thought it might be fun to take a look at Heinlein’s guidelines (hah!), opine on them, and tell you to what extent I agree with them. Obviously, the publishing landscape in 2026 is wildly different than it was in 1947, but I think Heinlein’s rules still largely apply, though, of course, there’s a lot of nuance there. Anyway, I’ll list each rule, give you my opinion on it, and then tell you how much I agree with it in a simple percentage score.

Let’s jump in.

---

Rules 1: You must write

No getting around this one. If you want to be a writer, especially a published one, you gotta write. I’ve heard some folks say that planning, organizing, and outlining should be counted as writing, too, which I agree with to a point. Those things are important, no doubt, but the best planning and organizing in the world doesn’t amount to squat unless it leads to words on the page. In addition, and I’m speaking for myself here, planning, outlining, and organizing can be a handy way to procrastinate from actual writing. (See also long-winded blog posts about writing rules from eighty years ago.)

So, yeah, 100% agree here.

Rule 2: You must finish what you start

Another slam dunk for Mr. H. You can’t publish what you don’t finish. This is something I see holding back a lot of new writers, and I think that’s because it’s pretty easy to start a project when the idea is fresh and exciting in your mind. Then, after that first page or so, things get tougher, the plot isn’t coming together the way you hoped, or the characters aren’t the people you envisioned, and so on. It’s easy to give up at that point, but I think it’s important to push through and accept that no piece of writing is ever going to end up like you thought it would be when you started. That doesn’t make it bad, just different.

Now, should you finish EVERY project you start? No, I don’t think so. I think you should finish MOST projects, but sometimes you take on a story or a novel during a time when you’re just not ready to write it, either because you don’t have the writing chops yet or because there are emotional factors at play. I think it’s perfectly fine to backburner a project like that, then return and finish it when you’re ready.

I’m 75% with Heinlein here.

Rule 3: You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order

Ooh, not sure I agree with this one. In fact, I mostly disagree with it, though there’s some nuance. He said editorial order, which I would take to mean from a publisher, i.e., on a story you’ve sold. I think you could bend the rule a tad and still hit the spirit of it if you included notes from beta readers and critique partners as editorial orders. Personally, I view those folks as every bit as important as the editor sending me notes on a sold story. They’re often the reason I was able to sell the piece in the first place.

No where I really disagree with rule three. Self-revision is a big part of my process. I’m a former editor, so I know a thing or two about how a story should work, and I always give my stories and novels a pass or two so I can fix obvious issues before I send them off to beta readers and critique partners. Can you over-revise? Yeah, definitely. You can get caught in a loop of trying to make the work perfect, which is a) impossible and b) almost guarantees that story or novel will never leave your hard drive. That’s why I limit myself to one or two self-revision passes before I hand it off to others to read.

I’m 25% in agreement with Mr. H here.

Rule 4: You must put it on the market

No argument here. If you want to publish a story, you have to put it out there. Now, again to say that things have changed in publishing since 1947 is the understatement of the millennia. Putting something on the market can mean a lot of different things in the year of our lord 2026. Heinlein almost assuredly meant sending the story to SFF magazines or the novel to agents/publishers. What you might call traditional publishing. Today, though, you can self-publish, and quite successfully. You can put your novel on Amazon or you can publish fiction on Substack or Medium or a blog and attract a huge and paying audience. The spirit of Heinlein’s rule still stands, though, You gotta put it out there and take the inevitable lumps (rejections and bad reviews) if you want to be a published writer, traditionally or otherwise.

Of course, some folks do indeed write simply for their own pleasure and have no desire to see the work published. That’s great and perfectly valid. Heinlein (and me to some extent) are talking about the business of getting published and trying to make a career out of this nonsense. If you’re not trying to do that, well, you’re smarter than me and probably a lot happier. 😊

I’ll go 100% here IF publishing is your goal.

Rule 5: You must keep it on the market until sold

This is a tough one, but I do agree with it for the most part. I see a lot of new authors give up on their story or novel after a mere handful of rejections. That’s usually a mistake, in my opinion. To date, I’ve sold over 125 short stories and nearly all of them were rejected multiple times. Many hit double-digit rejections before they sold. If I’d given up on those stories after one or two noes, well, I probably wouldn’t have much to put on my CV. Rejections suck, I know, but they do not mean bad story and bad writer. They usually mean bad timing and bad fit.

Now, do I think you should leave every story out there until you run out of places to send it? I don’t, especially if you get feedback from a rejecting editor that resonates with you. This kind of dovetails with Heinlein’s third rule about only rewriting to editorial order. Feedback on a rejection is not quite the same thing as editorial notes on a story you’ve sold, but it’s in the ballpark. If it makes sense, it’s a perfectly valid reason to rewrite a story. I’ve done it, and it’s resulted in the story selling on the next couple of submissions.

I also think it’s okay to trunk a story that’s not selling. I don’t think you should do this often, but sometimes a story is just not right for the market, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Additionally, especially when you’re starting out, you might submit a story that’s not ready for primetime, something you realize only after you’ve gotten a bunch of rejections and some experience under your belt.

Rule five is 75% for me.

---

To sum up, I think Heinlein’s rules hold up for the most part. The business of getting published has certainly changed a lot in the last eighty years, but these guidelines are still pretty universal, and I’d say following them, with a few caveats, isn’t a bad way to go if you’re trying to publish your work. Obviously, like with Leonard’s rules, there are plenty of successful authors who buck Heinlein’s rules and do just fine, though I dare say you won’t find many successful writers who don’t write and don’t finish. 🙂