One book I read, Scene and Structure, addresses a lot of the points in that article in greater detail. The one thing I had to argue with, though, is the idea of never letting up until the end. If the hero achieves anything during the story, make it a pyrhic victory, or find a way to take it away from him. Only at the end is it okay for things to conclude happily.

While it's very important to get tension going for the story to be interesting, it's also necessary to let up at times, to vary the amount of tension (just as you should vary your sentence length and structure), so the reader can take a deep breath at times before plunging back in.

Besides, look at it from the character's point of view. If absolutely nothing goes right, there's little reason to persevere until the end. A few very strong-willed people will keep trying, but most need some sort of incentive to keep going, even if it's just the family dog staring up in abject admiration when everyone else has deserted them. Shooting the dog at that point for additional tension is just cruel, to the reader as well as the hero.

I liked the one about nature: if the character is being hunted by the CIA and FBI, why not toss in a hurricane? That works, but be careful of overkill: the ever encroaching hurricane has just ripped apart the local nuclear plant and is carrying tons of radioactive material along with all the vials of infectious material stolen from the local CDC by the KGB agent that the hero once loved, not to mention the family dog being caught in the winds. ;-) (Sad to say, I've read more than a few stories with this sort of pile-up.)

Thanks for the article link!