I can see where you're coming from, and I'd say your first paragraph is spot-on. Although, talking about “the hand of fate” is missing a lot, I think. Elizabeth

I can see where you're coming from, and I'd say your first paragraph is spot-on. Although, talking about “the hand of fate” is missing a lot, I think. Elizabeth's success comes from her authenticity (see https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/46 https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/46), Mr Darcy's comes from his bettering himself, Lydia gets conned (and Mr Darcy arranges a marriage to at least preserve her social status, since happiness wasn't really an option for her after that)… Really, the only person in the story who gets what they're initially after is Mrs Bennet, and possibly Elizabeth (I don't remember whether she was against marrying someone wealthy, or just objected to marrying for wealth). > I'd argue saying it's about "status hierarchies" is not particularly informative. Saying it's about "status hierarchies" is only slightly more informative than saying it's about humans. (Note: there are plenty of books about neither.) I brought up Pride and Prejudice to begin with in order to make this point. > I'd wager 1% or less of readers, if asked what the novel would summarize it as being about status hierarchies. I would be inclined to agree. > It is said that fish do not see water, nor do Polar bears feel the cold. Native writers on subjects like those the present work deals with do not even think that anything which has been happening daily in their own immediate surroundings ever since their infancy can possibly be worthy of notice; ­— Hayashi Tadasu, via https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/23/water-fish/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/23/water-fish/