I Didn't See That Coming!

I commented a while ago (see post from 29 July 2011) on how reading extensively can make you a better writer.  I've just finished the second book in an unnamed fantasy series, and I've been spending some time analyzing the characters in the series.  Overall, the characters are well-developed; having unique traits and histories to which they remain consistent, while still having a growth arc through the story.

This particular author is writing at the top of his craft, and there are many things I can learn from how he handles his characters.  There were, still, several places where the I-wouldn't-have-written-it-that-way lights started flashing.  I'm not sure if this is more plot-related or character-related, but here's what I noticed:  Things seemed very predictable.

As soon as two characters come into conflict, I could see how that was going to build, and how it would eventually have to be resolved.  I did a quick count, and there were 21 such situations in this book.  Sixteen of these played out exactly (or almost exactly) how I thought they would.  Four of them remained unresolved at the end of the book.  The last remaining conflict involved revealing something that had happened in the past.  Whathad happened was what I thought it would be, but the how was completely different than I had predicted.

What I'm pondering on now, though, is whether or not it's better to set things up in a story and then deliver pretty much what the reader is expecting, or to have the plot twist and turn and keep the reader guessing?  While my personal preference is the convoluted didn't-see-that-coming option, there's no arguing with the fact that the author of the book I read has multiple NY Times bestsellers, while I…do not.  So, should I change my writing approach in order to be more commercially successful?

As an example of what I'm talking about, I can think of a number of instances in the Reckoning series we're working on where the characters will analyze the existing situation in an attempt to figure out what is going on.  In almost every case, they make logical, well-reasoned analyses…and then come up with the wrong answer.  The reader already knows what the right answer is, so the expectation is for each side of a conflict to respond to what is, but instead both sides are responding to what they think is going on, making the response something other than what would have been predicted.

As I said, I personally like this approach to plotting out a story, and keeping the reader guessing a little.  As I also said, as a writer, I tend to read a book differently than most people.  Please add comments with how you feel about stories you've read, and let me know if I'm going down the wrong path.