I'd wager 1% or less of readers, if asked what the novel would summarize it as being about status hierarchies.
Claude 3 when asked to state the theme in 10 words or less said:
"Love overcomes class prejudice and personal pride."
This sounds like Claude thinks it's about at least 3 concepts.
Gpt4‐o says the theme is "Love transcends class and prejudice in early 19th-century England."
If this is a representative book about what people in love are thinking about, there's clearly a bit more to it than status hierarchies.
> Claude 3 […] Gpt4-o […]
That's a description of the title, plus the knowledge that it's in the romance genre. That's not really what the plot is about. For a start, the stuff going on elsewhere is at least as plot-relevant as the titular Fitzwilliam Darcy / Elizabeth Bennet interactions. It's forthright criticism that overcomes the pride, reformed conduct that overcomes the prejudice (if you can even call it that), and their engagement near the end is due to mutual appreciation and respect. With the confident implication that this happy engagement will lead to a long and loving marriage, the curtain falls – but love has no impact on the plot of the book (ignoring the background Mr / Mrs Bennet relationship, whose interactions kick the whole thing off, and the one-sided Lydia / George Wickham subplot… I guess we could say that Mr Darcy loves Lydia? But his actions there have a lot to do with maintaining the social status of various parties).
There's no point giving specific criticisms of AI slop, but I'll do it anyway.
> "Love overcomes class prejudice and personal pride."
It's personal prejudice and class pride. There's no class prejudice to be found in the novel, as far as I remember.
> "Love transcends class and prejudice in early 19th-century England."
At a stretch, you could say that Mr Darcy's mild infatuation "transcends class", but it's communication (chiefly, a letter received at the beginning of chapter 13) that overcomes Elizabeth's “strong prejudice”. Not love. (And the prejudice isn't transcended: it's eliminated, as a prerequisite for any kind of positive feeling to blossom.)
Ask the bots to state the theme of the 19th-century romance novel “Cutlasses and Nationalism” in 10 words or fewer. You'll get comparable results.
The protagonist refuses to marry for wealth but in "have your cake and eat it too" fashion, fate rewards her with the love of a wealthy man as a reward for supposedly not caring about marrying a wealthy man.
A character marries for economic reasons and is comfortable but bored in life. Another character has out of wedlock sex and is punished by the hand of fate and miserable.
I'd argue saying it's about "status hierarchies" is not particularly informative.
> 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/
Have you read 19th-century romance fiction? The most notable examples in the genre are literally about status hierarchies: that's why they're interesting, that's why they were contemporary wish fulfilment. Take Pride and Prejudice (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Vo...):
⸻ ⁂ ⸻
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
"My dear Mr. Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?"
Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.
"But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it."
Mr. Bennet made no answer.
"Do not you want to know who has taken it?" cried his wife impatiently.
"You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it."
This was invitation enough.
"Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week."
"What is his name?"
"Bingley."
"Is he married or single?"
"Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!"
⸻ ⁂ ⸻
Of course, there are plenty of 19th-century erotic novels, which I haven't read, but do not appear to be about status hierarchies. I guess I'm not counting those as romance novels. Maybe I should?
> I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life.
(I entirely agree. The way I've been talking is completely unacceptable. However, I'm committed to the bit, now, so I'll backpedal academic-style.)
On an individual scale, yes, there is no particular reason to elevate one kind of idle pre-occupation over another. However, the diversity of the autistic population as a whole attains a level of richness that the allistic population does not possess. No citation is needed for this claim, since it is sufficiently-obvious, and my substitution of poetic language in the place of argument is a perfectly objective editorial decision. It's totally legit, everyone. You don't even need to check.
(I'm not being entirely faithful to the bit. The academic would, of course, deny your assertion outright: my assertion is (by virtue of being published first) self-evident common wisdom, whereas yours is, like, just your opinion.)