Let me ask something.
Are you ok with breaking a grammatical rule to enhance the rhythm of the narrative? or, No rule breaking can ever enhance the rhythm of the narrative?
It depends on a lot of things, but speaking generally, and speaking about
creative writing (fiction, poetry, CNF, even some feature non-fiction), the so-called "rules" of grammar are more guidelines than laws. As the writer Emma Darwin has said, grammar is a tool, not a rule.
Look carefully as you read others and you'll see all sorts of rule breaking for stylistic effect. Sentence fragments. Comma splices. Split infinitives. Subject/verb disagreements. I see this all of the time, especially by the Pulitzer and Booker Prize winners. (You can say they may do this because they are great, but I think they are great because they do this. That is, they reach beyond the norm.) Look at Jose Saramago. He won the Nobel Prize yet I don't think he's ever met a punctuation mark he liked. Iris Murdoch didn't hesitate to splice with commas. Buckle up when you read Philip Roth because his stylistic flourishes are a wild ride sometimes. The narrative voice in Junot Diaz's novels is one-of-a-kind, but the language and culture are richer because of it.
As benbenbari said, the rule breaking has to work. It can't be gratuitous. It has to be done knowingly and/or consistently and/or with stylistic power and effect. It has to leave the reader with a punch or an insight that is sufficient to "forgive" the grammar violation. (Though, in my experience, most readers don't recognize broken grammar rules because they don't even know the rules as well as writers tend to.)
That said, a person who writes poorly because they lack a grasp of basic grammar is not yet ready to be a writer. I think this comes from a lack of critical reading (rather than a study of grammar books).
As I've said in this forum before, we are creative writers. We're not writing term papers or legal briefs. We have the privilege and even the obligation to evolve the language.