Literal vs. Textual

While a work of literature have a literal meaning within its composition, there is often an expectation that there is another textual meaning to the work which is implied by the understanding of a work as being largely representative. When we think of works of literature, we think of the implied meanings or veiled symbolism which makes the work great, but is this necessary?

I think that, to some degree, a work of literature must have a textual meaning beyond the literal understanding of the sentences it contains. I think that this basic understanding of literature acknowledges that any particular work has an intended purpose; that every literary work has a message which the author is trying to communicate through his or her story. We often ask ourselves, or others, what we "took away" from a particular literary work, in essence what did it mean to us. This meaning which we seek within a literary work is essentially our understanding of the author's communicated message, and often that understanding is not explicitly stated within a work. If it were, than why not make the claim you are trying to make and be done with it? Is the formation of literature simply aesthetically oriented? It seems more likely that literature is constructed in such a manner as to communicate some form of understanding to the audience which they could not grasp absent the work.