True that compilers, tests, and QAing are nice protections that we get with code but not books (well sorta... books can still be alpha/beta-tested in the sense of having some people read them and share their thoughts). So yeah, not literally identical.
But I think it's still the right analogy. You code review to make sure the code is comprehensible to other humans. You code review to make sure the tests (which are great automated protections) are protecting against the right things. And (most relevant to the analogy) getting those things wrong are not abnormalities that mean you're a bad programmer and we don't trust you, they're things that competent devs can get wrong all the time.
My experience tells me there's no shortage of compilable gibberish.
No it's not.
If an author produces gibberish and nobody checks, the published result is gibberish. And with print books uneditable in a run starting in the thousands.
If a programmer produces gibberish, it won't compile.
It also won't pass the unit test or acceptance tests, never mind QA or the alpha/beta testers.