You fail at literary analysis -- I should know; I teach it. A) Characters are not just an extension of the writer's personality. They certainly can be, but characters are also derived from the world we live in, and the stories we tell. If I were to write an epic, for example, chances are I would base my characters, in part, on recognizable tropes found in that genre. The extent to which I played with or altered the genre, certainly, might speak to my talent as a writer, but one can be a talented writer and work very much within generic convention. No story is created in a vacuum, and no author's personality, identity, or sense of self is created in a vaccuum either.

B) Saying that "gender roles don't play a role in the narrative unless gender roles itself is a theme in the narrative" is, well, stupid. All sorts of things come to play in a text that might not be identified as a "theme" of the text by those looking for simple things like, oh, man against man, man against nature, man against himself (recognize those "themes"? I think they are what you think literature is primarily derived of).

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick -- sexuality and orientation can be an organizing principle in a text even when it's not the stated "theme" of the text, or a stated subject within it.

Toni Morrison -- race can be an organizing principle in a text even when it's not the stated "theme" of the text, or a stated subject within it.

A whole lot of feminist literary theorist -- sex and gender can be ...

Forget it.
tl;dr -- you don't know what you are talking about.