In the perusal of the Irish literature, we see that the strength of this conservative instinct has been of the greatest service in the preservation of the early monuments in their purity. So much is this the case, that in many tales the most flagrant contradictions appear, the author or scribe being unwilling to depart at all from that which he found handed down. For instance, in the “Great Breach of Murthemney,” we find Laeg at one moment killed, and in the next riding black Shanglan off the field. From this conservatism and careful following of authority, and the littera scripta, or word once spoken, I conclude that the distance in time between the prose tale and the metrical originals was very great, and, unless under such exceptional circumstances as the revolution caused by the introduction of Christianity, could not have been brought about within hundreds of years. Moreover, this same conservatism would have caused the tales concerning heroes to grow very slowly once they were actually formed. All the noteworthy events of the hero’s life and his characteristics must have formed the original of the tales concerning him, which would have been composed during his life, or not long after his death.

There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject’s sake, and those who write for writing’s sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper. This sometimes happens with the best authors; now and then, for example, with Lessing in his Dramaturgie, and even in many of Jean Paul’s romances. As soon as the reader perceives this, let him throw the book away; for time is precious. The truth is that when an author begins to write for the sake of covering paper, he is cheating the reader; because he writes under the pretext that he has something to say.

The aim of this book is to shed light on dystopia within the circle of twentieth century literature by analysing the development of totalitarianism and its detrimental effects, such as dehumanisation and social unrest that shattered the unity of society in three basic forms as reflected in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1953), George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Thus, it explores the beginning of totalitarianism resulted from an inborn instinctive drive as reflected in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1953) first, then its formation and rise in George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), then finally the ill effects of it in both society and in individuals in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Totalitarianism, together with “Fascism”, in the twentieth century can be confined to the period between 1922 and 1975. It starts with Mussolini; is followed by Hitler and Stalin, then ends with the death of Franco. It was during the rule of totalitarians that all ideals promising peace were abused to claim the rule, terror and fear factors were resorted to secure a totalitarian power at the expense of millions of deaths, torture and social unrest. In these novels, William Golding and George Orwell criticise how totalitarianism is established, and maintained by fear, manipulation and terror in the twentieth century.