I have trouble rating this. Mostly because it's one weird book.
It does not have a global argument. Things proceed as if by an association process. Logically but not... unified? I don't quite know how to... like interconnected episodes? Linear but not telling one thing. It made for a surprising ride, and most of the time I did not know where we were heading to (or was very much wrong).
Then there are the postures. I think that might be the all-or-nothing for the reader: that no one's feels quite right, and all have nuggets that feel true. There are no 'enlightened', no one to get behind and mesh with.
I think Huxley deliberately avoided presenting any character as a "hero" for the reader to empathise with. There are writers that can make you feel and root for the villain protagonist, and it feels like here we are shown a terrible world through either an omniscient, matter-of-fact, cheeky view or very critic characters', yet as we criticise in tandem, we are bothered by the ugly eyes too. Not feeling comfortable, like living vicariously through the character, or as it verbalized your thinking.
I'm likely being confusing, but I'm still sifting.
Lots of the quotes posted are great, but also out of context. I held back a few, and almost didn't post the ones up, because while true, most are actually disturbing in their medium. What ought to be universally, objective goods twisted into frame for horrors. Like the bit about happiness.
So, did I love it? Nope, no. Though I quite enjoyed the jaunty horror of the first two or three chapters. Did I care for the story? Not much, found it pretty pointless but as a vehicle. Did I think it has merit? Oh yeah.
Much to think about.
Edit 3rd-oct: My mind wandered over this while I was falling asleep last night (this is one of those books), and it occurred to me the three main male characters very much resemble the Id-Ego-Superego trifecta. Even while reading, I kept thinking I'd have one 'worthy' lead if I combined them.