It has clearly affected you and interfered with your life. It's become an 'intrusive' thought in your head (you should look up what actual intrusive thoughts are), and you are venting about it on reddit. Something that you could have simply dismissed and not worried about has eaten up a considerable amount of your mental energy and time. Let it go.

This doesn’t affect me or interfere with my life

It appears to have affected you and interfered with your life. Don't worry about it, get on with your own life let other people get on with theirs.

Oh you got there first

Counterpoint: Philosophy has long been ignored by contemporary education

From a marketing point of view that would be enough to slot it into the fantasy genre in my opinion. You mentioned there are religious people in your world, is the religion 'true' in your world? For example, if you think about ancient Greek myth, the gods and goddesses are involved in the story. So are the gods/goddesses of the religion in your story actually there, or are the people just following false religions and their prayers/rituals don't actually do anything?

Books don't always neatly slot into a genre. Does your book take place on Earth? Or is it a completely different place with an entirely different history? It could be an extreme case of an 'alternate history'. What is the level of technology in your world? Is it current to our own or more/less advanced?

A Scanner Darky by Philip K Dick

I was quite disappointed with Great Expectations. One of life's little ironies.

That's an interesting point, never had I considered that before.

If being unable to drive is the barrier, can you get public transport to the library?

If everyone decides to start using a word a certain way, that then becomes the way the word is used. I have many datas to support this.

One thing that stuck with me from it was when one of the characters asks the boy what he wants to be when he grows up and he says >!'kind'!<. Other than that nothing else jumps out at me, the drawings were lovely but there wasn't enough in it for me to keep it.

Older books will have more difficult prose generally speaking. There are plenty of 'modern classics' of the 20th century you could go with.
John Steinbeck - Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath
Ernest Hemmingway - A Farewell to Arms
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Joseph Heller - Catch 22

If you enjoyed Orwell you might as well read his other works. I've read 1984, Down and Out in Paris and London, Road to Wigan Pier and a few of his short stories and essays, Shooting an Elephant and A Hanging are interesting short stories that stick out to me.

The books I suggested above will give a good idea of where you'd like to go with your reading.

You could also read a translation of The Odyssey and The Iliad by Homer. There are loads of translations of these to choose from, it might be best to start with a modern prose translation. Homer is widely considered to be the foundation of the 'Western Canon' and generally people considered 'well-read' will have read Homer at some point in their lives.

There is a book called How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler that teaches you to read 'critically' but he also includes a large reading list at the back of the book that he considers to be great works of literature from the Ancient Greeks up to the 20th century. You could perhaps research some of the works on that list to see if anything takes your interest.

Even if you don't directly get a book wet or drop it in the bath, the humidity will have an effect on the paper.

As other have mentioned, the paper-white is waterproof. You can buy a bath tray that goes across the bath that are specifically designed to hold e-readers so you don't have to hold it, and just dry your hand with a nearby towel before you 'turn' the page on the paper-white.

In our current society we have freedom to choose things we desire, but our desires are formed by the society in which we live. In the BNW, I think the desires of the Deltas/Epsilons are determined by genetic engineering and indoctrination so that they never really desire a life other than the one they are assigned. So they don't question being 'unfree' because the life they have lines up with the life they would have chosen.

I accept your point that real world societies don't last long if you try to impose a crushing totalitarianism from above but what the society in Brave New World has that real world societies do not is the genetic engineering based on temperament. You can try to impose a system on humans that erases their individuality, like in 1984 where there is nothing left of the individual personality at the end of the novel, or you can breed people who are just content with how their lives are. Asking an Epsilon if they like being an Epsilon I suppose would be a bit like asking a tiger if it liked being a tiger. Or asking a sheep dog would it preferred to have been a guard dog.
Even if you asked an Epsilon would they prefer to be an Alpha, they'd say no. They don't question it because their preferences are determined beforehand by genetic engineering, so the question of freedom of choice doesn't come into it, since given the choice, Epsilons would chose to be Epsilons. That is clearly not true in reality where we don't have the kind of genetic engineering that takes place in BNW.

I think BNW asks can we breed out certain aspects of the human condition (such as a desire for freedom of choice). I don't like that idea, it sounds terrible to me, but if I had been bred in such a way to be happy with my lot, then I'd be happy with my lot.

I seem to recall that everyone is society is educated (or indoctrinated) into believing their class is the best. This is also reinforced by the genetic engineering that takes place: a person who is born into a class has the sort of personality that suits being in that class. The end result is that people are happy with their class because they have been bred with a certain temperament (think of dogs) which is bolstered by indoctrination.

The question then, as far as I see it, is if a person's temperament and the education they receive means they genuinely are happy in the kind of life they live, then how is it a dystopia from that person's point of view?

The world only appears to be a dystopia from the 20th century perspective in which the novel was written, where we value individualism and freedom of choice. Other societies may value social cohesion and individual self worth is derived from performing a specific useful function in society.

If anyone has read Plato's Republic they will immediately see the parallels between the society envisioned by Huxley and the 'perfect' society envisioned by Plato. In both, people are sorted into different classes (gold, silver and bronze) that have different functions allocated to them. Each person is educated to understand their role in wider society and draws value from having that function - it provides the 'meaning' that many people feel is missing from their lives in a modern, atomised society.

I think it touches on the interminable problems of the human condition. Each person wants to find the right balance between having an individual identity that isn't necessarily tethered to what the rest of society thinks that person should be. On the other hand they want to have some sort of meaningful function within society and be part of a cohesive whole. I'd say both of these drives exist in each person creating a constant tension which is just a fact of human existence to which there is no escape.