Here’s a cleaner version. Do you think a story can just be about the events of the story without necessarily having a deeper idea or message?
I think that the question of whether or not a story can represent anything more than is explicitly stated within its text requires the introduction of outside context, which, by virtue of being outside context, cannot fully be made explicit.
As the foundation required to discern implied meaning is a base level understanding of the context as brought forward by the reader- an understanding and awareness that the society they inhabit interprets "blue" as a moody colour, rain as sadness, closed curtains as a barrier, etc- then the bones of a story rest on a preconstructed foundation that is unique to the author, and may shift and twist and warp to reflect instead he curcumstances of the audience.
In my opinion, to ask whether or not a story has a single definitive meaning divorced from the intent of the author is like asking if a bowl only has one possible use- the answer is of course "no".
And as we have accepted that, to extend the metaphor: if a man in need of a cup, or a shovel, or an oil lamp finds that this bowl sufficiently serves this new purpose he has used it for, then for him, then that is a use of the bowl.
Now, some uses may be more effective than others- just because you CAN wear a bowl as a hat, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a very good one- but I would say that if you try a new use, and it works, then that is also a valid use of the bowl.
To abstract this a little further, I suggest we take our metaphorical bowl to an intelligent creature with no concept of "object which may be manipulated for a desirable outcome unrelated to the object itself". Like a Shetland pony.
The pony drinks from puddles and eats from conveniently-shaped deposits where hay and oats appear. It does not know what a hat is for. It cannot light fire. It cannot lift a bowl with its hooves. To a pony, a bowl is no different from any other unusually-shaped rock or chunk of loose, inedible wood. And so as far as the pony is concerned, the bowl is just a shape existing in its environment.
This has gone on a bit ling because I've enjoyed thinking about it, but I'll summarize my opinion:
If a subtext and cannot be effectively communicated without some engagement from the audience- the reader who brings with them the accepted premise that blue may be gloomy, rain may be sad, and curtains block things out- then to the reader without that knowledge, the room with the closed blue curtains shutting out the rain genuinely means nothing. No more meaningful or relevant than the presence of something we like to call a noun or a verb- just something we use to communicate what stuff is, plain and simple.
And that is, confusingly for them, an argument that is explicitly supported by the text.
TL/DR: A story has no deeper meaning unless you can find it.
