it's complicated. the relationship between the text and the audience and the author is one of the main foci of literary theory, and there are plenty of equally reasonable ideas about this. most commonly, you might hear about the "death of the author," which means that the text stands completely on its own and the audience wholly creates the meaning of the text through argumentation and textual evidence. but that's hardly the only theory, and several take into consideration the context of the text's creation and the context of the author's life. some use psychoanalysis, some use symbolism, some connect the text to a current context and claim that its meaning is fluid. some even give the author continued authority after the text is published, which is the exact opposite of the death of the author
I voted "no" because I'm post-structuralist, meaning I believe that the "meaning" of the text shifts regardless of the author's intentions and the most solid argument for the meaning of a text incorporates both phenomenology (the experience of the text) and structuralism (the systematic elements that inspired the text - in other words, the context). specifically, I tend to be a deconstructionist, which means that I think the fundamental ideological elements of a text are too complex to be reduced to simple dichotomies and fully-conscious human intent
man I haven't read a book in years