> 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/
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.