Subtext
Subtext
Subtext is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text).
Implicit is defined as: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : IMPLIED
Literary text is not defined by Merriam-Webster, but text is a means of communications which means that it (the message, the text) is shaped by the recipient of the text. There is no "objective" recipient of a message, every reading is ultimately subjective, every reading is interpretation.
What does this mean when it comes to subtext?
An implied meaning is a meaning that is understood as "implied by the author" by the individual reader. However that it is understood as such doesn't mean it was implied by the author. Neither does a reader not finding an implied meaning mean that it wasn't implied by the author.
To give you an example:
In Harry Potter we have two male bachelors who never shown any interest in the female sex, who live together, who display physical signs of affection for each other and who give Harry a joint Christmas present.
With a certain cultural bias one can easily conclude that they are both are ever so gay and together. However people can as easily miss this homosexual subtext. That doesn't mean that either reading is objectively right, in fact it's impossible to verify this subtext as implied by the author. Of course one could ignore the dead author and deconstruction and ask Rowling.
And if she confirms the homosexual subtext - what does it mean for the text, for the characters, for the plot? That Sirius and Remus send each other longing looks once upon a time in 1975, that they are casually shagging, that they are mated for life or that Rowling just wants to endorse an alternative lifestyle, while her characters are still straight as arrows? Subtext is always vague.
And what if Rowling says that there no homosexual subtext? Can we take her word for it? I mean, if she said that there is homosexual subtext in Harry Potter, then her books would suddenly find themselves removed from library shelves all over the globe and Rowling's image and reputation would never be the same again. Saying this could result in actual material loss for her, so why shouldn't she deny the homosexual subtext, even if she did imply it?
I've met people who read in OotP's Daily Prophet as subtext that criticised the American media in 2002. I am pretty sure I met a lot of people who didn't read that implied meaning. Once again we have an implied meaning, which Rowling would be unlikely to confirm, even if it was true.
On the other hand we have implied meanings we take for granted that might not have been implied by the author at all. There are no guarantees that the house-elves are the racial other, for example.
In most cases of subtext we will never get the author to confirm anything, if things were supposed to be explicitly stated instead of just being implied, they would be explicit in the text.
So it's up to the reader to decide what is an implied meaning of the text and what is not. To call anything that is not outright stated an objective truth is simply silly.