Reacting vs. Reacting

Reacting vs. Reacting

What's the difference between the two? 

While browsing through a critic section of a certain novel, I saw a comment stating that the MC's biggest fallacy was that s/he is bland because s/he just reacts to a situation. At first, I thought this made sense, that I understood what the commentator meant. Obviously, the MC is just "reacting" to a situation because the author just needs her/him to move the plot along.

And then, when I actually thought about it, I realize how "deep" that comment really is.

First of all, everyone reacts to everything. It's inevitable. Even when someone gets hit with a ball and doesn't do anything, the person is reacting. The reaction is the indifference to the ball.

But readers are bound to get bored of this dynamic. Something happens, someone does. So on and so forth.

There are many types of reactions, most of them as unique as the person reacting. The difference between a "bland" reaction and a "motivated" or "interesting" reaction is the why factor. There's gotta be a better reason for a character doing something other than "it was convenient for the plot". Think of a reason that actually connects your character's personality/motives with his/her actions. Do two and two connect? Disconnect? If so, why? Making the connections will help characters gain more depth as an individual.

There are many factors that can play into this; don't hesitate to use your imagination. It mostly depends on how complex you want to get, as well as your target audience.