In fiction, are the reactions of readers to the people and events of the story are more important than the people and events themselves?

I think a case could be made for both sides of the
question.  Without a story (the people and events about which one reads) there can be no
reaction by readers.  To that extent, then, the answer is false.  But, because an author
wants to create characters and events which will be compelling and cause readers to
react, the answer is true.  Probably in the middle somewhere is the
truth.

Outside the culture of "pop" fiction, which is all
about readership and book (or e-book) sales, writers generally write because they have
something to say, whether anyone ever reads their work or not.  Wanting their readers to
hear them and then react or respond is second to expressing themselves in writing. 
Interviews with and reflections by authors in all centuries seem clear about that
fact. Just as the sun shines whether we appreciate it or not, so writers write whether
anyone will read and appreciate their work or not. The same case could be made for
musicians and painters.  Even without an audience, most of them would still
create.

On a practical note, though, authors also want to
share their themes and perspectives and styles with others; it's just not always their
primary motivation.