Bernard or the Savage -- Who Wins?

Looking back on the novel, our group has been trying to distinguish who we think is the main protagonist of the story. The three possible characters are Lenina, Bernard Marx, and the Savage, John. At the beginning of the story, it would appear that Lenina and Bernard Marx are the two protagonists, and one seems almost to be the other one's foil. For example, Lenina is more carefree in the civilized world, and embraces all that the society has taught her to, while Bernard is perpetually upset by the way his life is turning out and rejects all that is forced upon him by the society, like taking soma. But it is through these opposite character types that we learn more about the two. We would not have seen Lenina's uptight nature if the rebel Bernard hadn't taken her to the Savage Reservation in New Mexico, and this trip revealed a lot about both characters as I talked about in my previous blog post. However, the ending of the novel, which is focused entirely on the Savage's actions and ultimately ends when he kills himself, leads the readers to believe that Huxley intended the Savage to be the main character. Huxley's character development is very interesting in this way, because the Savage is not even present in the first half of the story, but is the prominent character in the second half. We discussed a bit in class today how Huxley probably intentionally paired Bernard and the Savage as the main characters in order to show the two ways a society can turn out. Bernard, although he doesn't necessarily believe in the control the civilization places on the citizens, represents controlled happiness, and how the people of the civilization "prefer to do things comfortably." On the other hand, the Savage feels obligated to live his life the way he desires, even if that means that there might be strife and conflict in his life, and in the society; he is "claiming the right to be unhappy" (240). Through contrasting these two characters and their beliefs on happiness and society, Huxley is able to show the readers his point; men will naturally act in a disrupting and conflicting manner that will bring unhappiness, unless every aspect of their lives, and happiness, is controlled. But ultimately, who wins? Does Bernard because he is alive, "comfortable" and has the ability to be blissful with just one tab of soma? Or does the Savage because he was allowed to live the way he wanted, to believe in what he wanted,  he got to "learn to put up with [everything unpleasant]," and ultimately choose freely to be unhappy and take his own life? (238) In my eyes neither wins. Bernard is oppressed, pushed down and forced to live his life in a mold. He was fit to a certain caste and conditioned so he could no longer think for himself. He has no discomfort, but at what cost? And the Savage, while yes, he had the freedom to choose the route of his life, was plagued by hardship as he grew up in the Reservation and seemed unable to escape his free thoughts at the end of the novel and was forced to take his life.