I know the comparison of these two books has been beaten to death over the past half century, but it's interesting to hear it from the author's perspective.
I think its not really supposed to matter. Huxley came from a family of eminent biologists; his grandfather was the Huxley, Thomas Henry that is, Darwin's great friend and colleague. Therefore, I'm sure he would be familiar with biologic diversity, that no matter how tight the controls everyone is going to be a little different, total control can be approached but in the end is impossible.
I'm don't think I'm too qualified on this. I've read 1984 once a long time ago; I'm much more familiar with BNW. But I think you're correct that they lack free will and are oblivious to the fact. Where I think the governments differ is in intent. Big Brother (or whoever is actually running the government) is a strongman whose main goal is to hold on to power, proles lacking free will is the best way to maintain power, so it is imposed, but robbing of will isn't, I don't think, the goal, its just a side effect. One the other hand, the world government sees themselves are a benevolent force, robbing the people of will for their own good, under the guise that free will doesn't really exist anyway, so why not just adjust the experience of the individual? (See alpha0's post above for a more eloquent explanation that I could come up with).
- I know the comparison of these two books has been beaten to death over the past half century, but it's interesting to hear it from the author's perspective