Does a play need conflict, and what does Archer propose instead as an outline test (crisis, minor crises, first-act exciting moment, obligatory scene)?

Archer (Play-Making, 1912) quotes Brunetiere's formula of drama as will meeting obstacles and calls it a description of many plays but not a universal differentia: it is 'clearly an error to make conflict indispensable to drama'. He offers 'crisis' as the essence: a play is a rapidly developing crisis whose scenes are crises within the crisis, built from a series of minor crises, each act carrying a subordinate crisis. He adds usable tests: place Freytag's exciting moment in the first act, foreshadow without forestalling, identify obligatory scenes (five types), separate chance from coincidence, and allow a deliberate unemphatic ending. He treats Freytag's act-by-act functions as more historical than practical. Curator qualifications: 'it is clearly an error to make conflict indispensable to drama'; 'Perhaps we shall scarcely come nearer to a helpful definition than if we say that the essence of drama is _crisis_'; erregende Moment 'ought by all means to fall within the first act'; 'chance and coincidence are by no means the same thing'. Curator full count of 'law of conflict': 0. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10865/pg10865.txt",
      "note": "Gutenberg 10865 (Archer, Play-Making 1912)"
    }
  ]
}