I believe it is correct, ww, that the dramatic climax in Shakespearean tragedy is supposed to occur in the third act. Thus, in Hamlet the "play within a play" in Act III, wherein Hamlet catches the conscience of the king, is the point where the rising action ceases. Hamlet stops procrastinating and begins to act, leading inevitably to the tragic conclusion. Another example: In Macbeth the banquet scene is the moment, also in Act III, when things stop going Macbeth's way, and from there on it's falling action, downhill all the way. The Elizabethans, like the Greeks before them, seemed to feel that such conventions should be adhered to strictly, in the same way that a sonnet had to have fourteen lines of iambic pentameter. Since then drama, as is true of literature in general, has wandered away from these strict conventions. And it keeps changing. During the first half of the 20th century, plays were nearly always divided into three acts, with the dramatic high point generally occurring at the close of Act II. This is hardly ever the case now. In contemporary novels and short stories--aside from those that are obviously thrillers--the emphasis seems to be more on character than on action. Many of the short stories I read these days are basically character sketches that don't so much end as drift off. I can think of one novel--a favorite of mine, in fact--that does have a recognizable dramatic climax. That's A Separate Peace, by John Knowles. Halfway through the book an important event takes place and the mood changes dramatically, taking a darker path to the story's conclusion. It would be interesting to think of other fairly recent novels that have such a climactic moment.