Yes, but it would no longer be either random or natural or unaided. The dictionary contains knowledge. Injecting such wisdom/intelligence into the analogy would merely demonstrate that Life is more likely to form if there was some intelligence involved.
My point was that there are other factors which facilitate focusing the randomized generation of something. The author ignores the fact that generating DNA via a random process is still affected by chemical affinity toward creating certain classes of molecules, and that once a certain few limited molecules are formed there is a sudden & dramatic improvement in the development of more advanced structures.
The author, while waiting for the monkeys to pound out Hamlet, ignores the fact that they also generate vast numbers of other literary works - including the poetry of Grunthos the Flatulent, one of the Azagoths of Kria, and the entire diary of a steaming mold hiding on the second planet circiling Vega. By artifically limiting the monkeys to Hamlet, he severly distorts the statistics by ignoring all other viable texts (whether he can read them or not).
Huh? You are beginning to confuse your analogy with reality. The dictionary analogy shows that "randomness" is not. Certain combinations work (real words) and are retained because they do work and survive to the next generation. Other combinations don't work (gobbledygook) and are discarded -- in nature these are the combinations that are detrimental, or which do not promote survival, so they die off. There is no "Intelligence" guiding this; simply environmental pressures.