dougspice
Veteran
That isn't what an act is. What you're talking about here is a redefinition of a term with a well understood meaning. An act is a literal progression of plot. I hate to put it this way but it's me and Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett in one corner and you and Mrwrong in the other, oh well. Any engaging story is going to have "accumulation of plot, character, theme, and style", who in their right mind would argue that this isn't a good thing? Not me.
I guess I don't understand what your point was in starting this thread. You don't seem interested in actual debate. You've already settled on your viewpoint, don't intend to budge from it, but also haven't yet managed to clearly articulate what you're trying to say in a way that makes sense.
I could easily rewrite any Shakespeare play to follow three acts. I haven't read/seen Death of a Salesman but I'm sure there is a progression there that follows three acts. It is, after all, a highly respected work of fiction.
Ironically, as much as some people like Field are hung up on structure, you seem to be hung up on the opposite. I wouldn't go to either extreme, personally, but if I had to it's not hard to see which approach would actually lead to a productive career.
Maybe try taking one more stab at actually explaining what you're suggesting. Do you have a proposal for a superior technique to the three act structure? Even if it doesn't work all the time? If you do, it would be interesting to discuss. Otherwise, as you say, it's been fun.