Any discourse is modeled according to its context, producer, and receiver. When the information shared by the producer and the receiver of the discourse increases, the enunciation of the discourse becomes more abbreviated. Contrarily, when the shared information diminishes, the enunciation lengthens and becomes explanatory to ensure that the producer of the discourse can be understood well by its receiver. The discourse is produced in such a way as to be legitimately comprehended by its receiver unless its producer has a misdirected intention. Yet, discourse is also sometimes produced according to ulterior intentions so that the it is not understood accurately. Hidden meanings are concealed in the unspoken text. In the same way as in life, in literature too, apart from discourse, acts and states can also be masked. This can go so far as to make the entire work a mask. In this study, we analyze the masked discourses in George Orwell's Animal Farm in comparison with those in its French and Turkish translations to examine how these discourses may or may not have been transmitted in the translated versions. To what extent may the reader succeed in unmasking them? Is it possible to retain the masks of the original in the translated forms? In what cases and for what reason may the translator want to transform the masks of the original, annihilate them, or even create masks that do not exist in the original? Would there be instances wherein the translator would feel compelled to do so? In this study, we examine George Orwell’s text and its translated versions to find answers to these questions.