I think that the problem with your thesis, AuralPerplexions (being, essentially, that pieces of art are ultimately reflections of the subjective world of the artist) is that while this is partially true, it could lead one to forget something very important: that the genuine artist is not merely expressing him/herself, but is actually channeling something objective and superpersonal THROUGH him/herself.
One of the problems with modern literary culture, and all other artistic culture, is that it has committed precisely the mistake I just mentioned. This has lead it further and further away from the Traditional task of art (recognition of ultimate truth, ultimate beauty, ultimate reality, ultimate virtue, etc.) and deeper into a kind of degenerate school of "personality cults". When academics discuss literature now, they do it almost from a clinically psychological and sociological perspective, believing that the work in question is a kind of symbol of the artists psyche, rather than it being a symbol of anything greater.
For example, take Bach. The modern mind hears Bach and thinks, "Oh, this is so brilliant! What a genius! I wonder what his childhood was like?" as opposed to the Traditional mind, which hears it and thinks, "This music is a finger pointing at the divine."