THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MINOR CHARACTERS IN DEVELOPING THE PLOT AS SEEN IN DAN BROWN’S DA VINCI CODE

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

By

CITA PARAMITA WIJAYA

Student Number: 054214052

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2010

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MINOR CHARACTERS IN DEVELOPING THE PLOT AS SEEN IN DAN BROWN’S DA VINCI CODE

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

By

CITA PARAMITA WIJAYA

Student Number: 054214052

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2010

i

ii

iii

Dream as if you will live forever

Live as if you will die tomorrow

iv

This is for Amak and Papa

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my awesome lecturer, Dewi Widyastuti, S. Pd., M.

Hum and my co-advisor, Elisa Wardani, S.S., M. Hum., This thesis will not be complete without your guidance and advice.

I would like to thank Amak, and Papa. If my gratitude were symbolized as people then it would be the citizen of People Republic of China.

I would also like to thank these people who happens to come out of the same womb as me or I would like to call them “my siblings”: Andri a.k.a. Tua Hia, Benny a.k.a. Dji Hia, Debby a.k.a. Babi.

Next gratitude is for my friends in Pondok Melati: Artis, Etul Setiatul, Ci Vindot,

Dotul, Carlita Dada, Nyonya Hong, Ci Nora (Cina Norak), Ci Her a.k.a. Cebol, Awa, and the legendary Tuyul (Magic Mini Devil).

My friends around campus: Pispot, Oriwati, Irone, Dimas, Debor, Poetry, DP,

Jimbo, Butet, Weni, Nani, Priska, Acoy, The Underpanters, people in String Movie

Maniacs, Earnest and the Gang, the Greasers and others kids that I can not remember because there are too many of them, but they are always be in my memory.

I will be sorry if I do not mention these people: Kim “Kimbo” Beazley (the

Wizard of Oz), Pak Baik, Neng Ce. My gratitude also goes to my late best friends:

Kuki, and Nicky.

At last, I want to thank God for creating such things as human brain.

Cita Wijaya

vi

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ...... i APPROVAL PAGE ...... ii ACCEPTANCE PAGE ...... iii MOTTO PAGE ...... iv DEDICATION PAGE ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viii ABSTRACT ...... ix ABSTRAK ...... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Background of the Study ...... 1 B. Problem Formulation ...... 3 C. Objectives of the Study ...... 3 D. Definition of Terms ...... 4

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ...... 5 A. Review of Related Study ...... 5 B. Review of Related Theories ...... 7 1. Theory of Character and Characterization ...... 7 2. Theory of plot ...... 12 C. Theoretical Framework ...... 19

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...... 20 A. Object of the Study ...... 20 B. Approach of the Study ...... 21 C. Method of the Study ...... 22

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ...... 24 A. The Characterization of the Minor Characters ...... 24 B. The Development of the Plot ...... 40 C. The Contribution of Minor Characters in Developing the Plot ...... 46

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ...... 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 61

viii

ABSTRACT

CITA PARAMITA WIJAYA. The Contribution of Minor Characters in Developing the Plot as Seen in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2009.

There are many aspects that help building a literary work. Even to the smallest aspect like minor characters can help in constructing the plot in the story. These two aspects, minor characters and plot, are related to each other because without the presence of each aspect, the story will not be perfect. The novel, The Da Vinci Code shows a good example of how minor characters can help developing the plot of the story. The main purpose of this study is done in three steps. The first is by finding the characterization of the minor characters by using the facts given in the story. The next step is by finding how the plot of the story develops. The last step is by discovering the contribution of the characterization of the minor characters to the development of the plot. The last step is obtained by relating the finding in the first step to the second step. In order to find the answer to the problem formulation, the writer uses library research method. Several books about related theories and related studies are used. The approach that is used the New Criticism approach because this study is analyzing the intrinsic elements of the story. The result of this analysis is the minor characters are playing an important role in developing the plot. After the characterization of each minor characters and how the plot is developed are obtained, the final step is taken by using the facts taken from previous answer of the problem formulation. Each of the minor characters with their own characteristics is proven to be playing their part in constructing the plot. Their contribution can be seen from their action, decision and background. The plot develops through the complications and climax that they make.

ix

ABSTRAK

CITA PARAMITA WIJAYA. The Contribution of Minor Characters in Developing the Plot as Seen in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2009.

Terdapat banyak aspek yang dapat membantu membangun suatu karya sastra. Bahkan ke aspek terkecil seperti tokoh-tokoh minor sekalipun dapat membantu membangun alur cerita. Dua aspek ini, tokoh-tokoh minor dan alur cerita, berhubungan satu sama lainnya karena tanpa kehadiran salah satu aspek, cerita tidak akan menjadi sempurna. Novel, The Da Vinci Code menunjukkan suatu contoh yang baik bagaimana tokoh-tokoh minor dapat membantu mengembangkan alur cerita. Tujuan utama dari skripsi ini dicapai melalui tiga tahap. Pertama dengan menemukan karateristik dari tokoh-tokoh minor dengan menggunakan bahan-bahan yang terdapat didalam cerita. Tahap selanjutnya adalah dengan menemukan bagaimana alur cerita berkembang. Tahap terakhir adalah dengan menemukan kontribusi dari karakteristik tokoh-tokoh minor terhadap perkembangan alur cerita. Tahap terakhir dicapai dengan menyambungkan penemuan yang didapat di tahap pertama dan kedua. Untuk menjawab permasalahan, penulis menggunakan metode studi pustaka. Beberapa buku tentang teori dan skripsi yang berkaitan digunakan. Pendekatan yang dipakai adalah New Criticism karena skripsi ini menganalisa unsur-unsur intrinsik cerita. Hasil dari analisis ini adalah tokoh-tokoh minor memainkan peran penting dalam mengembangkan alur cerita. Setelah karakteristik dari masing-masing tokoh minor dan bagaimana alur cerita berkembang didapat, tahap terakhir dilakukan degan menggunakan bahan-bahan yang didapat dari jawaban atas permasalahan sebelumnya. Masing-masing tokoh minor dengan karateristik mereka terbukti memainkan peran mereka dalam membangun alur cerita. Kontribusi mereka dapat dilihat dari tindakan, keputusan dan latar belakang mereka. Alur cerita berkembang melalui permasalahan dan klimaks yang mereka ciptakan.

x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

When a writer begins to create a story, characters are always the most important thing in it. No story can ever be built without any characters in it. So many interesting characters exist in literary works, from psychopath like Dr.

Hannibal Lecter of Thomas Hardy’s book Manhunter to the luckiest yet retarded

Forrest Gump of Wiltom Gunter’s book Forrest Gump. Most of the time, people’s biggest concern is in the major characters and sometimes pay a little attention to the minor characters. Without even realizing it, the minor characters also affect the story in their own way, for example, how the minor character Bubba has helped Forrest Gump in changing his life after the war as seen in Forrest Gump. If

Bubba never existed, then it would be impossible for Forrest Gump to be success on his shrimp business or even built a shrimp business.

Minor character also has a certain influence in the story; even to the smallest minor character has their purpose in a story, because if they do not have any function, the author will not put them in the story. Their function can be to help the major character, to affect the major character’s mind or even to be the obstacle for the major character to achieve his goal. The next intrinsic element that will be discussed is the plot of the story. Like the character, plot is also one of the most important thing in a story, because with a great plot comes a great story.

Robert Stanton even stated in his book An Introduction to Fiction that “plot is the

1 2

backbone of a story. Because it is more self-evident than some of the story’s element” (1965: 15). From the action done by the characters, the writer can find the plot, the main character’s actions developing most of the plot but what is forgotten is the minor characters are also has their contribution in developing the plot. Every action done by main character always involves the minor characters.

Considering the facts given above, the writer is interesting in studying the minor characters contribution in developing the plot.

As for the object of study, the writer chooses The Da Vinci Code because this book has so many important minor characters that exist in the story. They are portrayed with different attitudes, figures and characterizations. They are created to build a story and have their own characteristics that differ from the others. And of course, the most important thing is that they affect the story through their action so much. The writer also notices that when The Da Vinci Code was first published, there are so many strong aspects that can be analyzed from the story but the strongest element that can be caught from the book is the plot. The sequence of events in the book is smartly made and organized well. The Da Vinci

Code is basically a suspense story about Robert Langdon who has to find evidence to prove that he is innocent from a murder where he is the suspect. In his way to prove his innocence, he meets so many characters that will help and also harm his way along the story. For the problems to be answered, by finding the minor characters’ characterizations, and the plot’s development, the final problems about the contributions of minor characters in developing the plot can

3

be searched. Furthermore, this study can be the vital element that will be useful to enrich the research in the same topic in the future.

B. Problem Formulation

This study is aimed to find the contribution of the minor characters in developing the plot, therefore the writer has formulated three problem formulations, and they are:

1. What are the characteristics of the minor characters in The Da Vinci

Code?

2. How is the plot of the story developed?

3. What are the minor characters’ contributions in developing the plot?

C. Objectives of the study

Based on the problem formulation, there are three objectives of the study.

The first focus is about finding what the characteristics of the minor characters are. The finding will be done by reading and studying the story.

Afterward, the second one is about finding how the plot of the story developed and will be done also by reading and analyzing the whole story using the appropriate theory.

Finally, how the minor characters contribute in developing the plot after finding the result of minor characters’ characteristic and how the plot of the story developed, will be the main focus here.

4

D. Definition of Terms

For a clear understanding of the study and to avoid being confused, the writer would like to define the terms that are used in the study. There are some terms that will be explained.

1. Characters

Abrams stated in his book, a Glossary of Literary Terms, that ”characters

are the person presented in a dramatic or narrative work who are

interpreted by the reader as being endowed with the moral and

dispositional qualities that are expressed in what they say—the dialogue—

and by what they do—the actions” (1981: 21).

2. Characterization

Characterization according to Hugh C. Holman and William Harmon in

their book, a Handbook of Literature, is “the way to create of imaginary

persons so that they exist for the readers as life like” (1986:81).

3. Plot

According to Abrams again in a Glossary of Literary Terms, “plot is the

structure of its actions, as these are ordered and rendered toward achieving

particular emotion and artistic effects” (1981: 127).

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies

Dan Brown actually has made several well-known books like Digital

Fortress, Angels and Demons and Deception Point, but it is his book, The Da

Vinci Code that really catches people’s attention because of its controversy. His other book, Angels and Demon that also tells a story about the same character,

Robert Langdon then gets popular too but people will always connect Dan Brown with The Da Vinci Code every time they hear his name. Therefore, it is not a strange thing to see there is a big number of people who have studied The Da

Vinci Code.

In this part, the writer will review the related study that have been found, they are the undergraduate thesis made by Martinus Arya Seta and Elisabeth

Grace Oktaviani. The first undergraduate thesis made by Martinus Arya Seta

(2006) is entitled: a Study of Symbols Presented in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci

Code: a Semiotic Analysis and the other from Elisabeth Grace Oktaviani (2006) is entitled: Did Jesus Mary Magdalena - a Study on the Functions of Christian

Jargon in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.

Martinus Arya Seta focuses on how the symbols constitute paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationship. He combines literature and linguistic study and also wants to give a new alternative in studying the book by employing a semiotic method; it can be seen from what he has stated:

5 6

For readers in general, this study provides an alternative in analyzing The Da Vinci Code by employing a semiotic method. A novel is a novel. Thus it is fictional no matter convincingly the author presents historical scenes. That is why the validly of historical information is not taken into account. In addition, the readers may understand the symbols in depth and comprehensively (Seta, 2006: 4).

While Elisabeth Grace Oktaviani’s undergraduate thesis is more focus on the linguistics area, sociolinguistics, by analyzing the Christian jargons that can be found in the story. She studies on what the functions of the Christian jargons in the story are. Here she finds that most of the Christian jargon in the novel functions as a neologism that may impress people with quite unintelligible references, meanings, or ideas behind certain words and also to confirm certain ideas that the novel wants to share (the major concern is the marriage of Jesus and

Mary Magdalene), with the other function as to show disagreement toward certain idea or group and to identify the member of the supportive group through indirect criticism about the doctrines, the belief and other aspects of Christianity that are connected to the issue of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The last function that she finds is the Christianity jargon is also indirectly used to identify those who are in line with the idea of the novel and those who are not, like for example; the use of the jargon holy Grail and Mary Magdalene and the use of the jargon does not mean to avoid people of knowing the meanings, but more to make them aware of the existence of those new meanings (2006: 83-84).

As stated above, the writer can find that both of them are combining linguistics and literature element by analyzing the semiotic and the Christianity jargon but still connecting them to the literature element like symbols and the 7

ideas or message of the story. From those studies, the writer hopes that both theses can be guidance in analyzing the work and to help in adding the information that can be used to analyze this study. In this study, the writer is trying to find a new thing that is different from the study above because the writer is focusing on the literature department by finding the contribution of minor characters in developing the plot that is not the same with the studies above that analyzed different aspect from what the writer does.

B. Review of Related Theories

This part consists of the theories that will be used in analyzing the problem formulations.

1. Theory of Character and Characterization

The first theory that will be discussed is the theory of character and characterization. Character, according to Abrams in A Glossary of Literary Terms, is “the persons, in a dramatic or narrative work, endowed with moral and dispositional qualities that are expressed in what they say—the dialogue—and what they do—the action (1981: 20)”. Therefore, the reader can see characters’ moral and dispositional qualities through their dialogues or speech and their actions. While Robert Stanton’s definition have the idea that character is the person with certain emotion and interest who appear in the story and will experience the changing during the story, he stated that the term character is commonly used in two ways.

It designated the individuals who appear in the story, and it refers to the mixture of interests, desires, emotions and moral principles that makes up 8

each of these individuals. Most stories contain a central character, who is relevant to every event in the story; usually the events cause some changes either in him or in out attitude toward him (1965: 17).

According to Roger B. Henkle in Reading the Novel: an Introduction to the

Techniques Interpreting Fiction character is divided into two; major and minor character.

Character can be described as major and secondary characters. Major characters are the most important and complex characters in the novel. They can be identified as such through the complexity of their characterization, the attention given to them (by the author and other characters) who deserve out fullest attention because they perform the key of structural function. Secondary characters are characters who perform more limited functions. They are limited in ways that the major characters are not. They may less sophisticate, so their responses to the experience are less complex and interesting (1965: 60).

To conclude, the major characters hold the main role or part in the story, without them the story will be nothing, on the other hand, the secondary characters, even though their role is needed, it is not as important and significant as the major characters. They also characterized not as interesting or sophisticated as major characters so their action or responses toward their problems are not that appealing to the readers. The secondary characters also have limited functions or can be said that they have only little room in the story that focuses on them.

Koesnosoebroto also stated that “as major characters can not stand on their own, it is the role of the minor ones to support the major characters’ existence in the story. Though they are less important, they function to make the story lifelike and more convincing (1988: 67)”.

The next thing that will be discussed is the theory of characterization.

Holman and Harmon say “the author presents the characters of actual persons; and 9

in fiction (the drama, the novel, the short story, and the narrative poem), the author reveals the characters of imaginary persons. The creation of these imaginary persons so that they exist for the reader as lifelike is called characterization” (1986: 81). while M.J. Murphy in his book, Understanding

Unseens: an Introduction to English Poetry and the English Novel for Overseas

Students, classifies nine way of how an author presents the characters. a. Personal description

The author can describe a person’s appearance like skin colour, eyes, hair,

clothes, etc. Personal description is used in many literary works by many

authors; it is the easiest way to tell directly to the readers the clues to a

character with certain feature. b. Character as seen by another

Instead of describing a character directly the author can describe him

through the eyes and opinions of another. The reader gets the clue of a

character’s personality or attitude through the other characters’ explanation

or opinion about that character. c. Speech

The author can give us an insight into the character of one of the person in

the book through what that person says. For example, whenever a person

speaks, whenever he is in conversation with another, whenever he puts

forward a opinion, he is giving some clue to his character. It means that the

readers will get some clues about a character through the character’s own

words. 10

d. Past life

By letting the reader learn something about a person’s past life, the author

can give us a clue to events that have helped to shape a person’s character.

This can be done by direct comment by the author, through the person’s

thoughts, through his conversation or through the medium of another

person. A character’s past life can give a clue to the readers about the event

that shape a person’s character. e. Conversation of others

The author can also give us clues to a person’s character through the

conversations of other people and the things they say about him. People do

talk about other people and the things they say often give us a clue to the

character of the person spoken about. f. Reaction

The author can also give us a clue to a person’s character by letting us know

how that person reacts to various situations and events. g. Direct comment

The author can describe or comment on a person’s character directly. By

using direct comments, the author gives the opinion about the character.

This is one of the most common way that most writer use. h. Thoughts

The author can give us direct knowledge of what a person is thinking about.

In this respect he is able to do what we can not do in real life. He can tell us

what different people are thinking. 11

i. Mannerism

The author can describe a person’s mannerism, habits and also behavior

whether positive or negative which tell us something about the reflection of

his personality (1971: 161-173).

There are several ways for an author to characterize the characters and the ways provide the analyst to examine the content of the novel in a proper way to gain a description of a certain character. Perrine (1974: 69) also stated about how characterization can be presented in two ways: a. Direct Presentation

The author who chooses direct presentation simply tells readers about the

characters in the story. He tells the qualify of the characters in exposition or

analysis or has someone else in the story who tells us what theya re like so

that the readers can understand the character directly. However this method

can not be used alone: it needs to be supported by the indirect presentation,

so that it will be more convincing. b. Indirect presentation

The author shows the readers the character in the action and tells the reader

what they are like from what they think, say and do. The author presents the

characters indirectly through the way they act and talk. From this, the

readers may infer their qualities from what they say, think and do.

Basically the theories suggested by Murphy and Perrine are just the same,

Murphy define the theory in a more detail way while Perrine clarifies only two 12

main idea. Both of them said that a person’s characterization can be seen from outside the character (like other characters) and the inside of the character himself

(from his own words).

2. Theory of plot

Plot is always one of the most important elements in a story. It shows the chain of events in the story that keeps the reader reading the novel. A good plot will make a good story. Koesnosoebroto stated in The Anatomy of Prose Fiction that “plot or the structure of the story is the arrangement of tied-together chronological events which have casual and thematic connections (1988: 29)”. He concluded that after evaluating several definitions from different literary theorists.

Different theorists propose different explanation or definition of plot; Aristotle’s definition in Koesnosoebroto’s book with his classic concept of plot: “plot has a beginning, a middle and an end.” (1988: 28). Aristotle defines plot based on its arrangement. Another theorist like Connolly (1988: 28) explain plot as “the arrangement of the details and incidents in the story.” Hall (1988: 28) also said that plot as “what happens in a story, the story’s organized development, usually a chain linking cause and effects.” Dietrich and Sundell (1988: 29) moreover write in Koesnosoebroto’s book that “a story has parts that are related to one another by a central action and usually a theme.” For them, plot may be defined partially as the arrangement of events in a story. A more complete definition would include some statements about how events are arranged, about what sort of connection between events there must be. However, E.M. Forster, an English novelist argues 13

that, he stated also in Koesnosoebroto’s book that beside chronological connection between events to make plot, it is necessary to plot to have casual and thematic connection between the events in the story. In his own book, Aspect of the Novel, E.M. Forster (1974: 67) said that mystery is essential to the plot. Plot, then, is the novel in its intellectual aspects; it requires mystery, but the mysteries are solves later on; the reader may be moving about in world unrealized, but the novelist has no misgivings. The last definition of plot comes from How to Analyze

Drama by Christopher Russell Reaske (1966: 35) who says that plot is basically the term for structure, so when we discuss about plot, we are actually discussing about everything that happens in the story. A story is composed of a series of incidents that follow one another according to some plan of ths author, every incidents is connected to incidents that follow.

After describing the plot’s definition, the next part is about the plot structure.

Koesnosoebroto (1988: 42-43) writes based on Aristotle’s classic pattern that plot must have a beginning, middle and an end. Initiation, complication and resolution are the terms that most clearly indicate the roles traditionally ascribed to the three parts. In a beginning, the problem and the characters are exposed or introduced and it acquaints the reader with the situation in general; usually it will introduce the characters, describe their background, describe the place and time of the events and suggest the basic lines of the conflict. The middle or complication is supposed to describe all troubles in the conflicts: it is here that the incidents of the action are dramatized into scenes, followed by a rising action and moves towards a climax – variously referred to as “the turning point”. This point marking the end 14

of the middle and the beginning of the end. The end, or resolution, is supposed to make clear all the consequences of the action: perhaps it will point out the moral of the story. The literary works nowadays tend to use the beginning-middle-end rule. That is why it is useful to the structure one by one.

a. Beginning

An author always provides information to the readers at the beginning of the story so that the readers can understand the conflict that follows. There are some requirements needed in the beginning part as stated by Robert C. Meredith in Koesnosoebroto’s book. Robert C. Meredith stated that “the beginning must be placed in time as close to the ending as possible. As the formula story commences either with a full—blown complication or with a minor problem that swiftly leads to a major complication, so that the reader may grasp immediately that something exciting is at issue” (1988: 51). This method exploits the dramatic interest of the story in order to wrap up the reader’s curiosity and to present simply and cogently to him the nature of the dilemma. This means that the beginning must also imply a desired ending. The next is if the complication itself is not immediately presented, a minor problem leading to the complication must be given. Very rapidly must the reader’s interest be brought to flow in a narrow and tightly directed channel, so that it will have an aim and a focus. Then the scene must be set and the principal characters must be introduced with an indication of the approximate ages, and the point of view must be established. Followed by the tone of the prose that must let the reader know what type of story he is reading. The reader must know where he stands. A romance, a mystery, a story of intrigue and all other types of stories 15

have their own moods, styles and peculiar atmosphere. William Kenney stated in his book, How to Analyze Fiction (1966: 15-16) the first thing that the readers note about the beginning is that it provides with a certain amount of information where the readers are introduced to the story’s character. It has the element of instability that it does not imply more than the facts it presents. It gives us the picture of a situation in which there exist sources of instability, which may at the outset be latent or overt.

b. Middle

Complication and development are two terms related to the role of the middle of the story. According Aristotle (1988: 52) in Koesnosoebroto, complication is all from the beginning of the story to the point just before the change of the hero’s fortune. We can see in the evidence in a diagram that related to the pattern of rising and falling actions in a story. The diagram, The Freytag’s

Pyramid consists of a exposition, rising action, climax, falling action and denouement.

Climax

Rising action Falling action

Exposition Denouement

Picture 1: Freytag’s Pyramid

On the line of rising action or complication runs a number of crisis—a crisis being defined as a turn in the action that affects the life of one or more of the major characters in some ways—to find culminating crisis or climax. The 16

climax itself is thought to occur properly at the end of the middle, at the beginning of the end (Koesnosoebroto, 1988: 53).

While Murphy in Koesnosoebroto (1988: 36) also stated another diagram that can be concluded that it starts with the introduction which sets the stage for action that will follow; the point of attack initiates the action, showing the main character in conflict with self, others, nature’s forces, or social forces; the complications make the problem more difficult to solve; the climax presents the opposing forces at the apex of their struggle; the resolution settles the outcome of the conflict; and the conclusion terminates the action. Basically the diagram is just the same with Freytag’s pyramid.

Climax

Complication

Complication resolution

Introduction conclusion

Picture 2: Murphy’s diagram

Furthermore, Murphy suggested in Koesnosoebroto’s book (1988: 37) that a term that is usually used in the middle part; prize. In a story, all protagonists want something. What they seek or move toward, sometimes unconsciously, is the prize or goal. The prize is so important to the protagonist that he or she will contend against strong opposition, even to kill, to achieve it. Another term used, stronger than exposition, is the point of attack which is the initial complication 17

that introduces the conflict. Once the conflict has advanced through a series of complication it reaches the point of highest emotional intensity, i.e. the climax. At this point, the tension is high, and the protagonist and antagonist are in conflict, and it is the moment of truth for them. Here the reader asks for the last time the question he posed at the point of attack and at various moments of crisis in the story: “Will the protagonist gain the prize?” or “Will he gain the fulfilment he seeks?” or “Will they make it?” Once these questions have been answered, we have the resolution or denouement, which presents the outcome of the conflict.

After the resolution, what remain moves swiftly to the conclusion or the end of the story.

Again, Meredith (1988: 54) in Koesnosoebroto proposes some requirements for the middle. The first is the middle must give the background of circumstances that produced the complication. One of the most obvious questions to occur after the presentation of the minor or major complication is what produced the situation in the first place. We normally demand satisfaction in terms of the historical or causative elements of an event. That is, whenever a circumstance occurs that requires some kind of solution, we normally question how this happened. A causal connection, as we mentioned before, is required.

Meredith’s next requirement (1988: 54) is that the middle must present a series of efforts (usually three) in which the protagonist attempts to solve the complication only to meet with failure. The formula that the protagonist must make three attempts at a solution, rather than two or four, is merely conventional and need not be followed slavishly. At this point, however, we may refer to the 18

nature of human mind which is not easily satisfied with only one attempt. After that, the middle must present, therefore, a situation of anticlimax in which it appears that the protagonist will finally solve the complication, only to meet with such disastrous failure that it leaves the reader convinced that there is no hope of a satisfactory solution.

Meredith’s final requirement (1988: 55) is the middle must force the protagonist to make an agonizing decision that will point to the solution of the complication. The reader’s sense of surprise also requires the writer to decorate and partly cover the obvious and to show what at first appears startling, even though after the initial wonders wears away, the solution will appear so inevitable that the reader will comment: “Well, I wouldn’t have thought of that, but just so…

I could think of no other solutions that would be better.” In the case of a poor story, when the solutions given are stereotyped, the reader can anticipate easily what will happen.

William Kenney suggests another point about the middle part about the importance of complication in a story:

Without adequate complication, the conflict would remain inert, its possibilities never realized. And it is by his control of complication that the writer gradually increases the intensity of his narrative, thus preparing us to receive the full impact of the climax (1966: 18).

Here Kenney’s point is that the harder the conflict that the main character gets, the more the intense that the readers will get in the climax part. The control of the conflict is also the key ingredient to make a good climax.

19

c. End

Koesnosoebroto writes that “after having spent so long time with the characters, the reader of the novel has become so interested in them, almost fond of them as acquaintance, that he is not adverse to a long passage following the resolution of the complication” (1988: 56). In this part, Meredith only proposes one requirement; the solution to the complication must be satisfactory and believable to the reader.

C. Theoretical Framework

The contribution of the theory of characterization and the theory of plot is to help the writer in analyzing and finding the answer of the problem formulation that have been stated above. The first theory; theory of characterization will be used in finding how the author characterizes the minor characters. While the next theory; theory of plot will be used in analyzing how the plot of the story developed. In the end, after finding the answer of the first and the second problem formulation, the third that is about the contribution of the minor characters in developing the plot can be found after combining and analyzing those two answers.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Object of the Study

The study of the minor characters’ contributions in developing the plot of the story takes one of Dan Brown’s novels, The Da Vinci Code as the object of the study. The writer chooses The Da Vinci Code because it has a very good plot with strong minor characters. The Da Vinci Code was first published by Doubleday

Group (United States) in 2003 by an American author, Dan Brown. The edition that the writer uses for this study is the second edition that consists of 489 pages and divided into 105 chapters.

When it was first published, The Da Vinci Code gained so many pros and contras, because many people considered the book as one of the most controversial novel. The contras condemned the book because it exposed the controversial theory of the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene and ancient Church’s cruel acts. The pros hailed the book for its excellence in combining the history and facts with twist at the end. Disregard the controversy from many people, the novel is a worldwide bestseller and has been translated into

44 languages.

Another achievement that The Da Vinci Code gets is when the novel won

Book Sense’s 2004 Book of the Year Award in the Adult Fiction category. It received positive reviews from The New York Times, People, and the Washington

Post. Additionally, The Da Vinci Code has inspired a number of novels with the

20 21

same story, like Raymond Khoury's The Last Templar and Steve Berry's The

Templar Legacy. Based on a survey in 2008 taken from more than 15,000

Australian readers, the book was in the fourth rank from the list of the 101 best books ever written. Following the success of the novel, Sony’s Columbia Picture adapted the novel into a major motion picture in 2006 starring Tom Hanks as

Robert Langdon with famous movie star sidekicks; Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno,

Paul Bettany, Sir Ian McKellen and Alfred Molina. An Oscar winning director,

Ron Howard directed the movie. The film grossed $217,536,138 in 2006, making it the fifth highest grossing movie of 2006.

The story in this book is basically about Robert Langdon’s adventure in investigating the murder of Jacques Sauniere, the curator of Lourve Museum. He was helped by Sauniere’s granddaughter, Sophie Neveu. On their way of proving

Langdon was innocent, Langdon and Sophie had to face so many obstacles, some of them come from Jacques Sauniere’s puzzles and Opus Dei’s fanatic disciple who keeps chasing them. They also revealed so many secrets about The Church in the past and Holy Grail.

B. Approach of the Study

This thesis focused on the plot and the minor characters, therefore the writer used New Criticism in analyzing the work. Wilfred L. Guerin writes in his book A

Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature that New Criticism only focuses on things inside the work and put away all matter outside the work. This can be seen: 22

The New Critics sought precision and structural tightness in the literary work; they favored a style and tone that tended toward irony; they insisted on the presence within the work of everything necessary for its analysis; and they called for an end to a concern by critics and teachers of English with matters outside the work itself—the life of the author, the history of his times, or the social and economic implications of the literary work. In short, they turned the attention of teachers, students, critics and readers to the essential matter: what the work says and how it says is as separable issues (1992: 81).

New Criticism’s most salient considerations are emphasis on form, on the work of art as an object. Since, this study does not touch any of outside matter beside the work itself, the formalistic approach or New Critics is suitable to help to study the literary work.

C. Method of the Study

Library research was used in this analysis. The primary source in analyzing the work was the novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, the secondary were books and website about the work and the theories, approach and undergraduate thesis as related studies. The books like; a Glossary of Literary Terms, a

Handbook of Literature, An Introduction to Fiction, Aspects of the Novels and

Related Writings, The Anatomy of Prose Fiction, etc were used as one of the most important source in studying the work.

Several steps were taken in studying the novel, first of all, the writer read the novel comprehensively in order to understand the story fully. After reading the novel, the element of plot and minor characters attracted the writer very much because the intensity or strength in the story. Then, in order to find out the 23

contribution of minor characters in developing the plot, the writer used several theories taken from proper books after the data were collected before.

For the next step, the writer applied the theories and approach to answer the problem formulation. The theory of character and characterization were used to reveal how the minor characters were characterized by the author, while the theory of plot was used to reveal how the plot of the story developed. Finally, after the previous two problem formulation finally answered, the writer answered the third probem formulation using what had been found because they were related each other. The contribution of minor characters in developing the plot could be found. Then, after all the problem formulation had been answered, the writer could draw conclusion from the analysis.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

This chapter will answer the three-problem formulation as stated before in the first chapter. The analysis will also be divided into three parts; the first will be about how the author characterizes the minor characters in The Da Vinci Code.

The next part is about how the plot is developed in the story and then followed by the final parts of the chapter, which is about finding the contribution of the minor characters in developing the plot of the story.

A. The Characterization of the Minor Characters

The first part of the analysis will discuss the characterization of the minor characters in the story. First of all the writer will use the theory of character by

Roger B. Henkle in Reading the Novel: an Introduction to the Techniques

Interpreting to classify who the major characters are and who the minor characters are. There Henkle stated, “Major character holds the main role or part in the story

(1965: 60)”. To find the main character, we need to find character with the most attention given by the author and other characters and as we can see in the story, there is a person who becomes the main attraction or focus of the story; he is

Robert Langdon. He holds the most important part of the story, from the beginning of the story until the ending. Major character deserves the most attention from the author and other characters because they perform the key of structural function. Robert Langdon is the key of the story, he is a complex

24 25

character with unique characteristic that is relevant every part of the story, and also everything revolves around him.

Furthermore, to define the minor characters’ definition, again Henkle stated that “minor characters have limited function or can be said that they have only little room in the story that focuses on them (1965: 60)”. Another theory from

Koesnosoebroto about minor character: “As major characters can not stand on their own, it is the role of the minor ones to support the major characters’ existence in the story (1988:67). In the story, the writer finds so many minor characters that fulfill the criteria stated above; they do not have room as big as the major character and have limited function because they are not always relevant to every event in the story. Their existence in the story is to support the major character and it can be seen clearly based on facts in the story.

Langdon had not initially agreed with this idea, but as they had hatched their plan, Sophie’s logic began to make sense. Teabing was safe at the moment. Even if Remy and the others knew where the knight’s tomb was located, they still might need Teabing’s help deciphering the orb reference. What worried Langdon was what would happen after the Grail map had been found. Leigh would become huge liability (p.395).

From the statement above, Langdon is clearly in need of the others help to achieve his goal. The others characters are only there to help Langdon and that is why they are being qualified as the minor characters. In addition, most of the story’s point of view is taken from his point of view. It clearly shows his position as the only main character in this story.

Langdon could not help but feel a deep sense of loss at the curator’s death. Despite Sauniere’s reputation for being reclusive, his recognition for dedication to the arts made him an easy man to revere (p.15).

26

Langdon could see the skepticism on Sophie’s face and certainly understood. Few people realized that anagrams, despite being a trite modern amusement, had a rich history of sacred symbolism (p.107).

Robert Langdon stood beneath the lofty cupola of the deserted Chapter House and stared into the barrel of Leigh Teabing’s gun. Robert, are you with me or against me? The Royal Historian words echoed in the silence of Robert’s mind (p.450).

In the story, all of them revolve around the main character, Robert Langdon.

Thus, it is obvious that the story only has one major character and the rest are minor characters. In the writer’s finding, there are several characters in the story that fits the criteria but the writer will only choose the minor characters with the biggest influence to the major characters and the story, they are the cryptologist:

Sophie Neveu, the Louvre Museum’s curator: Jacques Sauniere Saint Claire, Opus

Dei’s fanatic disciple; Silas and last, England’s nobleman: Sir Leigh Teabing.

Their existences are not the main attraction but still mean so much to the story’s intrigue and scheme.

1. Sophie Neveu

The characterization of Sophie Neveu is obtained through mannerism, and character as seen by another. Sophie Neveu is a French cryptologist who is also the granddaughter of Jacques Sauniere. Her portrayal is acquired from character as seen by another, since her figure is obtained from Langdon and Fache’s thoughts about her. She is portrayed as an attractive young woman with unembellished beauty that exposes her personal confidence.

Langdon turned to see a young woman approaching. She was moving down the corridor toward them with long, fluid strides…a haunting certainty to 27

her gait. Dressed casually in a knee-length, cream-colored Irish sweater over black leggings, she was attractive and looked to be about thirty. Her black thick burgundy hair fell unstyled to her shoulders, framing the warmth of her face. Unlike the waifish, cookie-cutter blondes that adorned Harvard dorm room walls, this woman was wealthy with an unembellished beauty and genuineness that radiated a striking personal confidence (p. 55-56).

From the description above, we can see that Sophie is a different kind of beauty, she does not really care about dressing too much, and she just dresses casually but still manages to look attractive or in other words, she is a natural beauty. Sophie’s beauty also can be seen from other description made by Bezu

Fache, the police captain: “Women not only lacked the physicality necessary for police work, but their mere presence posed a dangerous distraction to the men in the field. As Fache had feared, Sophie Neveu was proving far more distracting than most. (p. 55)” Again this makes it even obvious that Sophie is very attractive for women at her position.

Besides her beauty, Sophie is a stubborn woman; Fache shows this in his thought about Sophie that

At thirty-two years old, she had a dogged determination that bordered on obstinate. Her eager espousal of Britain’s new cryptologic methodology continually exasperated the veteran French cryptographers above her (pp. 55).

Clearly, Sophie is very annoying for Fache since she always wants to achieve her own goal doggedly, in this case, her wish to adapt the new cryptologic method, this shows how stubborn she is. She does not care even when people that she is against with have higher positions than her.

Despite her stubbornness, Sophie is a very smart woman; she breaks the first clue left by Sauniere even before the others have any hint about it. She finds the 28

answer of the random numbers that turns out to be Fibonacci sequence, one of the most famous mathematical progression in history made by Leonardo Fibonacci.

She also finds the finds the answer of the third anagram: “so dark the con of man”, that actually refers to Da Vinci’s famous painting, Madonna of the Rocks.

She also always has a plan for everything. In order to free Langdon from police’s inspection, she comes up with a smart plan where she deceits all the police who think that Langdon has escaped from Louvre. Even Langdon admits that Sophie is very smart: “Langdon decided not to say another word all evening.

Sophie Neveu was clearly a hell of a lot smarter than he was (p. 93)”. The other fact that can be seen is when Sophie and Robert Langdon are trying to escape from French’s police; Sophie is the one who comes up with the idea of clever escaping. She uses Langdon’s credit card so that police think that they are using train to escape, while they are actually driving taxi to run away and it works, just like the first plan that she made to free Langdon from Louvre. The other prove that she is smart is that she does speak fluently both English and French. Even Sir

Leigh Teabing who is a pure English man praises her English:

“It is so late, my dear, it’s early.” He laughed. “Vous n’etes pas Americaine?” Sophie shook her head. “Parisienne.” “Your English is superb.” “Thank you, I studied at the Royal Holloway.” (p. 246).

From the example taken from the story, Sophie is also a great liar, she lies to Fache from the first time, and the lying is so convincing that even Fache believes it. She lies to him that Langdon get a phone call from the United States about the accident of Langdon’s friend. 29

Sophie’s other characteristic is that she is superior woman and can be seen from mannerism way. She always orders Langdon to do stuff without even asks for his agreement. Most of the actions she takes are without Langdon’s agreement, as we can see when she points the gun to the taxi driver, so that the taxi driver will not report them to the police:

Sophie had rolled down her window and now aimed the gun outside at the bewildered cabbie. “Robert,” she said quietly, “Take the wheel. You’re driving.” Langdon was not about to argue with a woman wielding a gun. He climbed out of the car and jumped back in behind the wheel. The driver was yelling curses, his arms still raised over his head. Langdon looked down at the car’s controls and hesitated. Shit. He groped for the stick shift and clutch. “Sophie? Maybe you—“ “Go!” she yelled (pp. 178-179).

As we can see from the conversation above, Langdon, as man, has no power at all, he does what she asks him to do. She does not even ask for his permission or agreement. It is very clearly that Sophie is a very commanding or dominant type of woman.

2. Jacques Sauniere Saint Claire

Jacques Sauniere Saint Claire or to be simply referred as Sauniere is a

Louvre Museum’s curator. Most of Sauniere’s description is obtained from other characters because he is killed from the very beginning of the story, according to

M.J. Murphy who classifies nine ways of how an author presents the characters,

Sauniere’s description is classified as “character as seen by another”: “The reader gets the clue of a character’s personality or attitude through the other characters’ 30

explanation or opinion about that character (1971: 162)”. He is described as a man who loves art, codes and puzzles very much. Sauniere is also a man who is blessed with a great talent in making artistic stuff. He is good at making especially anagram and a great craftsman. This can be seen from what Sophie Neveu, his granddaughter, thinks:

Sophie’s passion and aptitude for cryptography were a product of growing up with Jacques Sauniere—a fanatic himself for codes, word games, and puzzles. How many Sundays did we spend doing the cryptograms and crosswords in the newspaper? At the age of twelve, Sophie could finish the Le Monde password without any help, and her grandfather graduated her to crossword in English, mathematical puzzles and substitution ciphers (p. 83).

She now recalled that her grandfather—a wordplay aficionado and art lover—had entertained himself as a young man by creating anagrams of famous work of art. (p. 106).

Sophie explained that creating models of Da Vinci’s inventions was one of her grandfather’s best-loving hobbies. A talented craftsman who spent hours in his wood and metal shop, Jacques Sauniere enjoyed imitating master craftsmen—Faberge, assorted cloisonné artisans, and the less artistic but practical, Leonardo da Vinci (pp. 216).

From what the other characters think, Sauniere is also a very respectable and highly regarded by people. One example is from what the Security warden Claude

Grouard thinks when he knows Sauniere is murdered:” This bastard killed

Jacques Sauniere! Sauniere had been like a well-loved father to Grouard and his security team (p. 139)”. This shows how much he is loved by people, even though he is respected for his high position, he still cares about people whose degree is not as high as his and that is why they love and respect him very much. The other comes from his old friend, Andre Vernet. Sauniere’s wife told Langdon to return 31

the box they get from the bank where Andre Vernet works. From this evidence, we can see that as a friend, Sauniere is very respected and regarded:

I know of a man at the bank in Paris who is probably very eager to see the return of this rosewood box. Andre Vernet was a dear friend of Jacques, and Jacques trusted him explicitly. Andre would have done anything to honor Jacques’ request for the care of this box (p. 478).

Sauniere is also the Grand master of the Priory of Sion, a secret society that nurture and protect the bloodline of Christ and hold a key to open the secret of the

Holy Grail. The Grand master position that Sauniere has revealed that he is the man with artistic soul. This can be seen from what is stated in the book: “After all, previous Priory Grand Master had also been distinguished public figures with artistic souls. (p. 224).”

His next characterization is that Sauniere is a man of mystery. He always keeps a secret; the main reason is that he is a Priory Grand Master who has to keep the secret of Holy Grail, the Sangreal documents and Christ’s bloodline. The evidence from the books can be seen when Langdon tries to crack the last puzzle made by Sauniere: “Langdon strained to understand. Everything about Jacques

Sauniere seemed to have double meanings, and yet Langdon could see no further

(p. 482).” This again claims that Sauniere is stereotyped with mystery surround him. Sophie Neveu as his granddaughter also realizes that his grandfather is keeping so many secrets from her. She has gone so many stages in her life that shows how mysterious his grandfather really is, it begins when she was still a young girl until she has become an adult. These following facts show that even 32

though Sophie has known his grandfather for all her life she still does not know who he really is:

Her grandfather was silent a long moment, and Sophie could see he was uncertain to answer. Grand-pere never lies. “It opens a box,” he finally said. “Where I keep many secrets.” Sophie pouted. “I hate secrets!” “I know, but these are important secrets. And someday you’ll learn to appreciate them as much as I do.” (p.120).

Sophie slipped through the door and found herself on a rough–hewn stone staircase that spiraled downward. She’d been coming to this house since she was a child and yet had no idea this staircase even existed (p.152).

My grandfather spoke a language so obscure that even a symbologist can’t identify it? She quickly realized she should not find this surprising. This would not be the first secret Jacques Sauniere had kept from his granddaughter (p. 324).

The last description that can be obtained from the story is that Sauniere loves his granddaughter, Sophie so much, that he will sacrifice everything for her.

This shows that Sauniere is a family man, his biggest concern and love is devoted to his family, and in this case is Sophie, the only member of family that he has now. He even uses Sophie’s name for the password to open the cryptex and call her with secret initials, P.S. = Princess Sophie. We can see how much Sauniere loves and adores Sophie:

“P.S.?” He tickled her. “Princess Sophie.” She giggled. “I’m not a princess!” He winkled. “You are to me.” (p. 121).

Because of his love to Sophie too that cause Sauniere were tricked by Silas and it ends in the murder of Sauniere. Silas just simply mention Sophie’s name 33

just to get Sauniere’s attention. Sauniere who is afraid of the safety of Sophie and does not use his common sense anymore and ignoring his own safety:

The mention of Sophie’s name had been the catalyst. The curator leapt into action. He ordered Silas to come to see him immediately in the safest location Sauniere knew—his Louvre office. Then he phoned Sophie to warn her she might be in danger (p. 453).

From the explanation above, we can see how worried Sauniere becomes when Silas mentions Sophie’s name. From all the description and facts that we got from the story, it can be concluded that Sauniere is characterized as a respected art lover with high position, he is loved by others and very mysterious. In addition, the last and the most obvious is that he loves his granddaughter so much shows that he is a family man.

3. Silas

Silas is one of the minor characters that will be analyzed; his characterization’s description is mostly taken from personal description, past life and thoughts. Silas is an albino monk; he is physically described as frightening and horrifying and always described as a strong man with big figure and having red eyes: “He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair, His irises were pink with dark red pupils (p. 3)”, “Over time, he grew strong (p. 60)”.

The other fact even shows how he changed into a man and people are terrified with him and call him ghost because of his white skin and red eyes:

The boy had grown into a powerful young man. When people passed by, he could hear them whispering to one another. A ghost, they would say, their eyes wide with fright as they stared at his white skin. A ghost with the eyes of devil! (p.61). 34

Silas has a very dark background; his father always beats him and his mother because he is disappointed for having an albino child like Silas. Silas kills his father because his father beats his mother to the death. Silas then runs away from his home and then lives in the street where he has to struggle to stay alive in the tough street life. He is also rejected by people in the street because of his look:

“His strange appearance made him an outcast among the other runaways (p. 60)”.

People around the street are also afraid of his look: “Over time, the looks of pity on the streets turned into the looks of fear (p. 62)”. All of these things make Silas feels rejected by everybody, he even refers himself as a ghost. It is no wonder that he has a big self-pity.

However, Silas then finds himself a man as a father figure: Opus Dei’s bishop, Manuel Aringarosa who saves Silas when he almost dies. Aringarosa is the only man that Silas really care about. Also because of Aringarosa, Silas finds religion and devotes himself to the strict Catholic ways of Opus Dei. One may call

Silas as an Opus Dei’s fanatic, he really dedicates his life and body to this religion. He is obsessed with self-punishment (Silas wears a cilice to control his sexual desire) and celibacy, and his goal in life is to serve Bishop Aringarosa and

Opus Dei:

For ten years now, Silas had faithfully denied himself all sexual indulgence, even self-administered. It was The Way. He knew he had sacrificed much to follow Opus Dei, but he had received much more in return. A vow of celibacy and the relinquishment of all personal assets hardly seemed a sacrifice (p. 79).

35

The facts given above show that Silas is a really determined or strong- minded man. When he chooses a way, he will always follow and be loyal to it. He is also motivated by his unhappy background that makes him does not want to lose things that he really cares about.

In the end, it can be concluded that Silas is a very strong man with a great determination but also a great self-pity to himself.

4. Sir Leigh Teabing

Sir Leigh Teabing or often referred as Teabing is an English nobleman with lots of money, since he comes from noble family, it is no wonder he is a very classy person. His description can be seen through Langdon’s point of view about him:

Leigh Teabing was wealthy in the way small countries were wealthy. A descendant of Britain’s First Duke of Lancaster, Teabing has gotten his money the old-fashioned way—he inherited it. His state outside of Paris was a seventeenth-century palace with two private lakes (p.236).

The description above shows how Teabing is a wealthy man. He does not even have to work to earn that money, since he inherits it. The place that he chooses to stay which is a seventeenth century palace with two private lakes shows how this man has a certain classy taste that is really different from most people will chose. Instead of choosing an ordinary nice place to stay, he picks an elegant palace. The author even describes how amazing the palace or the chateau is:

The sprawling 185-acre estate of Chateau Villette was located twenty-five minutes northwest of Paris in the environs of Versailles. Designed by 36

Francois Mansart in 1668 for the Count of Aufflay, it was one of Paris’ most significant historical chateaux. Complete with two rectangular lakes and garden designed by Le Notre, Chateau Villette was more of a modest castle than a mansion. The estate fondly had become known as la Petit Versailles (p. 239).

Through mannerism and personal description of the character, the author tries to describe the characterization of character and this can be seen from the next characterizations of Teabing. Teabing is shown that he loves his country very much; he makes everything around him based on British way, from the sign on the gate that is written in English to the gate’s intercom that is put in the right- hand side of the passenger’s side that is different from the French’s style. This also shows how stubborn he is actually, even though he lives in France, he does not want to adapt the French’s daily style. As a proud English nobleman, he wants everything is done in English way. He wants everything is done in his way.

Teabing is also a handicap man, he has to wear leg braces and walked with clutches because of the polio that he gets when he was a kid, but he still somehow looks as a proud man, he will never let the disability that he gets decreasing his pride as a nobleman. Sophie’s description of his appearance shows it:

Their host arrived at the bottom of the stairs, appearing to Sophie no more like a knight than Sir Elton John. Portly and ruby-faced, Sir Leigh Teabing had bushy red hair and jovial hazel eyes that seemed to twinkle as he spoke. He wore pleated pants and a roomy silk shirt under a paisley vest. Despite the aluminum braces on his legs, he carried himself with a resilient, vertical dignity that seemed more a by-product of noble ancestry than any kind of conscious effort (pp. 246-247).

The above description by Sophie really shows how Teabing is really keeping his dignity as a nobleman in spite of his disability and shows how classy 37

his style is, with the clothes he is wearing, pleated pants and roomy silk shirt under a paisley vest. He knows how to dress exclusively.

His other characteristic is Teabing is a very eccentric man; he has certain style that not everybody is familiar with. In addition, this characterization is shown from “character as seen by another”, where “the reader gets the clue of a character’s personality or attitude through the other characters’ explanation or opinion about that character (Murphy, 1971: 162)”. People who do not know him very well will raise their eyebrow when they see his style. One of them is when he gives Langdon a small test before Langdon can enter his chateau, Langdon even have to remind Sophie that Teabing is a unique person: “Langdon groaned, whispering at Sophie. “Bear with me here. As I mentioned, he’s something of a character.” (p. 241)”. In the other occasion, Langdon again reminds Sophie that

Teabing has a unique sense of humor: “Actually, I should probably warn you before you meet him. Sir Leigh has a sense of humor that people often find a bit…strange. (p. 244)”. His behavior toward Sophie also makes Sophie thinks he is a little mad. It happens when he kisses Sophie’s hand when he meets her for the first time; “Sophie glanced at Langdon, uncertain whether she’d stepped back in time or into a nuthouse (p. 247)”. The facts that are shown above really give a picture how unique Teabing is.

Teabing’s other characteristic that can be seen is his obsession of Holy Grail that shows he is a kind of person who is really obsessed to a thing and will devote and sacrifice his whole time and life for it. Besides, well known as English nobleman, he is also known as great Holy Grail’s researcher. His obsession and 38

knowledge about Holy Grail can be seen from the beginning of his entrance. The reason he wants to accept Langdon’s visit is because Langdon mentions Grail before. Since his obsession of Grail is so big it is not a strange thing that he knows so much about Grail. Even Langdon who is a Harvard professor admit that

Langdon is the expert of Grail: “Believe me, Leigh Teabing knows more about the

Priory of Sion and the Holy Grail than anyone on earth (p. 237).” and “The Grail has been Teabing’s life, hearing the story of the Holy Grail from Leigh Teabing will be lie hearing the theory of relativity from Einstein himself (p. 238)”. Those exaggerating expressions from Langdon show how good Teabing is with the Holy

Grail. He is also the man who explains everything about Grail to Sophie, because

Langdon think that it will be better and clearer if Teabing explains it.

The other characteristic of Teabing that can be seen is his nature; outwitting.

Teabing has an incredible gift in outwitting people, along with this, his other characterization also reveal that he is a good liar. These characterizations of

Teabing are taken from mannerism way where a person’s manner can tell the reader about the personality of that person. One of the examples can be seen when he outwits Silas. He lies and pretends that he will fall and drop the keystone, while he actually wants to traps Silas so he can strikes him with his metal crutch.

He does it so naturally that even Silas believes it and react to the situation panicky. He even take advantage from his own situation, his cripple leg is his best excuse to do the trick that he does.

“It’s quite heavy,” the man on the crutches said, his arms wavering now. “If you don’t take it soon, I’m afraid I shall drop it!” He swayed perilously. Silas stepped quickly forward to take the stone, and as he did, the man on the crutches lost his balance. The crutch slid out from under him, and he 39

began to topple sideways to his right. No! Silas lunged to save the stone, lowering his weapon in the process. But the keystone was moving away from him now. As the man fell to his right, his left hand swung backward, and the cylinder tumbled from his palm onto the couch. At the same instant, the metal crutch that had been sliding out from under the man seemed to accelerate, cutting a wide arc through the air toward Silas’ leg (p. 300).

This condition again stating how good Teabing is in outwitting people, even a unit of police is outwitted by him. His other action also making it obvious that he is a good liar: It happens when he lies to an altar boy just to get in to the

Temple Church. He makes up the entire story that actually does not exist at all and he acts so well that even the altar boy finally believes the story:

“Young man, apparently you are new here. Every year, Sir Christopher Wren’s bring a pinch of the old man’s ashes to scatter in Temple sanctuary. It is part of his will and testament. Nobody is particularly happy about making the trip, but what can we do?” (p. 373).

As we all know, what he just states above is not true at all, but it appears that, Teabing is a smart liar that comes up quickly with a fictional fact. Even

Langdon has to admit that he is a very good liar: “Leigh,” he whispered, “you lie entirely too well.” (p. 374). However, the best lie and outwit Teabing has ever done is when he acts as “the Teacher”, the real antagonist of the story. He lies through most of the story and outwit everybody. He has plan that is organized well and he just simply runs it through Silas and Remy, his servant who also his accomplice. The evidences are shown throughout the most actions related to the

Teacher and Teabing himself in the story. One of his great lies as the Teacher is when he lies to Silas: 40

“Good. For your own safety, you need to get off the street immediately. The police will be looking for the limousine soon, and I don’t want you caught. Opus Dei has a residence in London, no? “Of course.” “And you are welcome there?” “As a brother.” “Then go there and stay out of sight. I will call you the moment I am in possession of the keystone and have attended to my current problem.” (p. 403).

The lies that he said to Silas just convince Silas so much to do what he says to him. He shows a great sympathy for Silas just to make sure that Silas will trust him more. He plans Silas to hide in Opus Dei’s residence to avoid the police, while in fact he is actually outwitting Silas by sending an anonymous message to the police telling them the location of Silas. The next action that he does shows how he outwits Silas cleverly:

“With the sound proof divider raised, Teabing was able to phone Silas and direct Silas to go straight to Opus Dei. A simple anonymous tip to the police was all it would take to remove Silas from the picture. (p. 443)”.

At last, it can be concluded that Sir Leigh Teabing is a character with some characterizations: He is a smart and eccentric English nobleman who is obsessed with Holy Grail, even though he is cripple he is not ashamed of it and proud of himself and last thing that can be seen from Teabing is that he is also very good at outwitting people.

B. The Development of the Plot

The second part of the analysis is about the finding the development of the plot of the story in The Da Vinci Code. The writer will use Koesnosoebroto’s 41

theory of plot in The Anatomy of Prose Fiction classifies that: “plot or the structure of the story is the arrangement of tied-together chronological events which have casual and thematic connections (1988: 29)”. He also writes based on

Aristotle’s classic pattern that a plot must have a beginning, middle and an end.

The pattern will be combined with a more detail diagram by Murphy that consists of exposition in the beginning, complications and climax in the middle and at last resolution or falling action and conclusion or denouement.

1. Beginning

As Koesnosoebroto stated that in the beginning, the problem and the characters are exposed or introduced, the beginning of The Da Vinci Code is about the murder of the Louvre’s curator, Jacques Sauniere by Silas. Here, the author is applying a pattern from Koesnosoebroto that “The tone of the story must let the readers know what type of story he is reading. (1988:51)”. From the very beginning of the story, the readers already know that the story s about mystery and thriller. The scene moves to another place where we are introduced to the main character of the story, Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor, other characters are also introduced in this part, and they are the minor characters: Sophie Neveu, a

French cryptologist and Bezu Fache, a French police.

In the next scene, Silas is coming to Church of Saint-Sulpice to seek for the keystone. The readers also can see the description of Silas’s past life in this part.

He is apparently a man with a dark background where he has been rejected by many people from his father to everybody around him. Also in the same part, the 42

readers find another character, Teacher. He is a mysterious character that has a special relationship with Aringarosa. The events in the Louvre are the opening events that will attract the reader to be trapped into the story. It is also welcoming the readers to the starting of the conflicts that will grow bigger as the story develops into another part.

2. Middle

The middle is the part where the main character is in conflict and the complication makes the problem harder to be solved. All this complications will lead to climax where the tension is the highest. Here, there are so many complications that Langdon have to face. a. Complication or conflict

Koesnosoebroto states that “on the line of rising action or complication runs a number of crisis to find culminating crisis or climax (p. 53)” In the complication, we can find so many crisis or problems that the main character has to face. After introduced by some characters and the starting conflict, the bigger and more complicated complications are waiting for Langdon and Sophie. When they are trying to escape from Louvre, they have to solve other clues from

Sauniere. The clue leads to an ancient secret brotherhood, Priory of Sion, where

Sauniere is part of it. Police is one of the main obstacles in this part because their existence builds a complication for the protagonist. Langdon and Sophie have to escape from police every time. After they do it successfully in Louvre, Langdon and Sophie have to escape from police again in train station, bank, Teabing’s 43

mansion and in London. The police always somehow manage to track their position but Langdon and Sophie always run away successfully.

Silas is another character that becomes obstacle in this part, like the police, his existence builds a complication for the protagonist. He always tries to take the keystone that Langdon and Sophie get from cracking Sauniere’s clue. Silas gets the information about the keystone’s position from the mysterious Teacher. When

Langdon and Sophie are in Teabing’s place, Silas breaks in and pointing everybody his gun, but fortunately with Teabing’s trick and Sophie’s kick, Silas can be beaten. When Langdon arrives at London to solve Sauniere’s another puzzle, Silas comes again after he is released by Remi, Teabing’s man-servant who is also the Teacher’s accomplice. This time Silas successfully takes the keystone away from Langdon and Sophie. He then gives the keystone to the

Teacher. Along with Silas, the Teacher also becomes the complication in this part because he is the main brain behind Silas’ action. All the complication mentioned above lead to conflicts that the protagonist has to face. The criteria of middle part is the rising complication or conflicts that the protagonist has to face and in this part, the event after Langdon and Sophie escape from Louvre to the last event in

London where Langdon and Sophie have to crack last clue from Sauniere’s keystone are part of the complication or conflict section These crisis in this section are connected each other and finally reach its culminating point in the last section where the tension starts to rise.

44

b. Climax

For the climax part, Murphy in Koesnosoebroto’s in The Anatomy of Prose

Fiction states that “the climax presents the opposing forces at the apex of their struggle” (1988: 36). Here, the middle part reaches the climax where Langdon and

Sophie find out that the real antagonist is Sir Leigh Teabing who is also the

Teacher, the real brain of all troubles. He is also the man who orders Silas to kill all the Priory of Sion’s Grandmasters including Sophie’s grandfather, Sauniere.

By controlling Aringarosa, Teabing can also control Silas. Here, Langdon is given two options by Teabing: to choose between Holy Grail or Sophie. Langdon finally makes his own decision by smashing the cryptex on the floor. Teabing who tries to catch the cryptex falls down and finds that the cryptex is already opened.

Langdon is holding the solved riddle, an answer to all the mystery about Holy

Grail.

3. End

After the climax, the readers can see the falling action and resolution or denouement that present the outcome of the conflict.

a. Falling Action

After the incident in Westminster Abbey, Teabing never finds out what the answer of the second riddle that will guide to the location of Holy Grail, one thing that he is obsessed with for all his life. Langdon never tells him what the answer is. Silas runs away from the police and dies after he gives his last pray for 45

Aringarosa and he accepts himself like the way it is. Teabing is captured by the police for all his crimes and soon will face the trial. Bishop Aringarosa decides to use Opus Dei’s money that he wants to use to give to the Vatican to be given to the casualties’ family that Silas has killed. In the meantime, Langdon and Sophie also have their good names cleared from all charges. All of these actions are the outcome or result of the conflicts, as Murphy states “the resolution settles the outcome of the conflict” (1988: 36). The resolution or the falling action shows the result that we can find after all the complication. b. Denouement

According to Meredith in Koesnosoebroto’s book, there is only one requirement for the end: “The solution to the complication must be satisfactory and believable to the reader (1988: 56)”. And it also happens in this story where

Sophie finds her long lost family after she and Langdon follow Sauniere’s last clue. It is a happy ending for them because they get together again. As for

Langdon, his quest for the Holy Grail is answered by Marie Chauvel, Sophie’s grandmother’s clue about the Holy Grail. And like the readers’ expectation,

Langdon also seems to have a special relationship with Sophie in the end. The epilogue in the last part of the book shows how Langdon closes the story, few days later, when he follows the tracks that the last clue reveals and leads him to

La Pyramide Inverse in Louvre Museum. There, he gets to understand the exact meaning of Holy Grail’s quest.

46

C. The Contribution of Minor Characters in Developing the Plot

This part will focuses on the contribution of the minor characters in developing the plot of the story. The plot that is applied in the novel is divided into three major parts: beginning, middle and end. By applying the finding in the previous part that shows the pattern of the plot of the story, the third problem can be analyzed. In the beginning, the writer shows the event that starts all problems and conflicts later in the story. The readers are being introduced to the various characters from the major to the minor characters that play their part in the story.

In the middle, the starting conflicts grow bigger as new facts and another minor characters show up. The complication then rises to the climax where the tensions of the readers reach the highest level. In the end, the story reaches to falling action part and denouement that shows the outcome of the climax. In order to make the study more specific, this part will shows three parts based on the plot’s scheme.

1. Beginning a. Jacques Sauniere

The story of The Da Vinci Code starts with the murder of Sauniere by Silas.

From the very beginning of the story, the readers can already see the contribution from Sauniere. His main characterization as man of mystery and a puzzle lover can be seen clearly in his role in the beginning part where he leaves the first clue that will lead to another clue in opening his secret. His artistic soul can be seen when he leaves clues that are related to so many great artistic works by famous artists. His puzzles play a very important part throughout the story because they 47

are very hard to reveal. His first puzzle gives the story its initiate obstacle that becomes the opening of the mystery and problem that will grow as the story goes.

Since he is also characterized as a family man, Sauniere leaves a clue that will attract his granddaughter, Sophie who is also a cryptographer. By leaving a cryptogram puzzle, he wants the police to contact the cryptographers because

Sophie is a cryptographer. He wants to give a clue to Sophie because the puzzle will reveal something very important to Sophie. Without Sauniere’s presence, the story will not begin or happen because his killing becomes the starting point that leads to clues that open up all the mysteries. b. Silas

Silas also plays a very important part in the beginning of the story because he and Sauniere open the story with the initiate situation that helps letting the readers know what kind of story The Da Vinci Code is all about; mystery and thriller. Letting the readers know what kind of story a book is all about is one of the main criteria for the plot requirement for the beginning part. His characterization as a man with great determination makes him not care if he has to murder someone as long as he can finish the task given to him. It is shown when he kills Sauniere.

The gun roared, and the curator felt a searing heat as the bullet lodged in his stomach. He fell forward... struggling against the pain. Slowly, Sauniere rolled over and stared back through the bars at his attacker. The man was now taking dead aim at Sauniere’s head. Sauniere closed his eyes, his thoughts a swirling tempest of fear and regret. The click of an empty chamber echoed through the corridor. The curator’s eyes flew open. The man glanced down at his weapon, looking almost amused. He reached for a second clip, but the seemed to reconsider, smirking calmly at Sauniere’s gut. “My work here is done” (pp.4-5). 48

Silas’ role is basically as Teabing or the Teacher’s servant who does all the dirty works. His characterization as man with full determination really helps his role in doing all the works, killing Sauniere is one of the examples. Silas’ role in killing Sauniere is important because without this incident, Sauniere will not leave any clues and no truth will revealed. c. Sir Leigh Teabing

Sir Leigh Teabing’s first appearance in the beginning is as his alter ego, the

Teacher. He is the man who gives Silas the order to get information about the

Holy Grail. Since he is very smart, he makes the entire plans himself. The first plan is not obvious yet because in the beginning, the problem is just being introduced. In the very beginning of his appearance, the readers can already see the mysterious atmosphere in the Teacher’s character. From his plan, the story grows to a more complicated tension. d. Sophie Neveu

As the initiate situation reveals at the very beginning of the story, other minor character, Sophie is introduced. Sauniere’s first clue successfully catches the attention of Sophie. After she gets involved in the story, Sophie who is characterized as smart and a good liar directly makes a very smart plan to rescue

Langdon using her lies. Also using her stubbornness, Sophie manages to lie to

Fache successfully. Her other plan also successfully works, where she and

Langdon manage to escape from the police.

Turning toward the window, Sophie gazed through the alarm mesh embedded in the plate glass, down the dizzying forty feet to the pavement 49

below. A leap from this height would leave Langdon with a couple of broken legs. At best. Nonetheless, Sophie made her decision. Robert Langdon was about to escape the Louvre, whether he wanted to or not (p.86).

If Sophie does not exist, there is no way that Langdon can escape from the

French police. Her role as Langdon’s savior is helped with her characterization as a good liar and smart woman. These facts shown above clearly show how Sophie as the minor character has helped developing the plot from the first initial conflict to rising action where the mystery and tension that are rising.

2. Middle

In the middle, the minor characters’ contributions are more obvious than before because the initiate conflict that starts to grow bigger and complicated as more facts revealed. This part will be divided into two parts: complication or conflict and climax. a. Complication or conflict

1. Jacques Sauniere

Sauniere is characterized as respectable man, his death attracts so many attentions from people, and this gives Langdon and Sophie a very hard time because they become the most wanted suspect from police that put the case as their main priority. The cat and mouse chasing between police is one of the complications that they have to face. The media is also interested in them, the newspaper and television also show publish their face to the public.

Instead, the guard was calling the bank night’s manager. As the line rang, the guard switched the television back on and stared at it. The news story he 50

had been watching was just ending. It didn’t matter. He got another look at the two faces on the television. The manager answered. “Oui?” “We have situation down here.” “What’s happening?” the manager demanded. “The French police are tracing two fugitives tonight.” “So?” “Both of them just walked into our bank.” The manager cursed quietly. “Okay, I’ll contact Monsieur Vernet immediately.” The guard then hung up and placed a second call. This one to Interpol. (pp. 193-194)”

The event above shows how Langdon and Sophie has a very limited space to go since their faces are shown everywhere. Moreover, Sauniere’s puzzles become the main riddle in this part, his first puzzle leads Langdon and Sophie to another puzzle. The secret that Sauniere has kept is revealed one by one, as more facts are exposed from his puzzles. He will not let his secret be known easily. This can be seen from his first cryptex puzzle.

Also plaguing her thought was a fear that what they eventually found inside this cryptex would not be as simple as “a map to the Holy Grail”. Despite Langdon and Teabing’s confidence that the truth lay just within the marble cylinder, Sophie had solved enough of her grandfather’s treasure hunts to know that Sauniere did not give up his secret easily (p. 331).

One of Sauniere’s characterization is he is a mysterious man, the story will be different if Sauniere is portrayed differently because the readers will not feel the shock if Sauniere already tells everybody about his secret life in the Priory of

Sion easily. Sauniere’s puzzle that contains secret of the Holy Grail gives its contribution in this part by giving a chance to Sir Leigh Teabing to enter the story, because of the puzzle, Langdon comes to Teabing to seek help.

51

2. Silas

Beside Sauniere’s puzzles as the main obstacle, Silas’ role in this part is obvious since he is the obstacle who always tries to harm Langdon and Sophie’s way to solve Sauniere’s puzzles. His big determination to all his tasks makes him really hard to be stopped. Since complication’s part shows the obstacles that the main character has to face, Silas really plays a big part here. The facts that will be given show when Silas tries to stop Langdon and Sophie’s effort to answer the puzzle and he also wants to take the keystone from them. Since he is characterized as a powerful man, he often uses his power in his tasks.

Sophie Neveu, despite working in law enforcement, had never found herself at gunpoint until tonight. Almost, inconceivably, the gun into which she was staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair. He looked at her with red eyes that radiated a frightening, disembodied quality. Dressed in a wool robe with a rope tie, he resembled a medieval cleric (p. 299).

Like a ghost, Silas drifted silently behind his target. Sophie Neveu sensed him too late. Before she could turn, Silas pressed the gun barrel into her spine and wrapped a powerful arm across her chest, pulling her back against his hulking body. She yelled in surprise. Teabing and Langdon both turned now, their expression astonished and fearful (p.386).

Silas is success in his second attempt to take the keystone or cryptex away from Langdon and Sophie. The cryptex is then given to the Teacher and the conflict continues to get more intense.

3. Sir Leigh Teabing

The middle part will not be complete without Sir Leigh Teabing or the

Teacher’s role. Sauniere’s clue that contains so many elements of Holy Grail makes Langdon contacts Teabing in order to seek help to solve the puzzle. He 52

proves himself as a great helper at first by helping Langdon and Sophie escape from police’s chase and in cracking the puzzle. He is characterized as a smart person, therefore it is not a strange thing that he can help cracking the puzzle.

Langdon was impressed. Teabing had just finished writing out the entire twenty-two-letter Hebrew alphabet—alefbeit—from memory. Granted, he’d used Roman equivalents rather than Hebrew characters, but even so, he was not reading through them with flawless pronunciation (p.344).

After helping Langdon and Sophie in cracking the puzzle, he also helps them in escaping once again from the police using his ability in outwitting people.

If he is not good in outwitting, surely the story will be completely different because our protagonist will not be able to finish their effort. Whilst appearing as a good Teabing, he also appears in his alter ego, the Teacher, who is the mysterious character that gives command to Silas to take away the cryptex from

Langdon and Sophie. He is the actual complication since he is the main brain in the entire evil plan. Every evil plan comes out from his head.

The swelling in Remy’s throat came on like an earthquake, and he lurched against the steering column, grabbing his throat and tasting vomit in his narrowing trachea. He let out an muted croak of a scream, not even loud enough to be heard outside the car. The saltiness in the cognac now registered. I’m being murdered! Incredulous, Remy turned to see the Teacher sitting calmly beside him, starring straight ahead out the windshield. Remy’s eyesight blurred, and he gasped for a breath. I made everything possible for him! How could he do this! Whether the Teacher had intended to kill Remy all along or whether it had been Remy’s actions in the Temple Church that had made the Teacher lose faith, Remy would never know. Terror and rage coursed through him now. Remy tried to lunge for the Teacher, but his stiffening body could barely move. I trusted you with everything! (pp.414-415).

53

In his last action in outwitting Silas and killing Remy, Teabing has raised the conflict and cause the readers’ curiousness grow bigger in finding out who the

Teacher is. His great talent in outwitting people again plays a very important part.

4. Sophie Neveu

Sophie Neveu as the sidekick who always helps Langdon, the main character, shows her important role in this part. In the beginning, she helps

Langdon escapes from Louvre, and in this part she helps Langdon in most of the conflicts that occur in the complication part. Without Sophie, it is impossible for

Langdon to survive in the conflicts. Her characterization as a smart woman can be seen clearly in this part, she helps Langdon in finishing the puzzle left by her grandfather. Her close relationship to her grandfather also helps her in understanding the puzzle. She helps solve the small conflict in cracking the puzzle.

“Aah,” Sophie said, seconds after examining the box. “I should have guessed.” Teabing and Langdon turned in unison, staring at her. “Guessed what?” Teabing demanded. Sophie shrugged. “Guess that this would be the language my grandfather would have used.” “You’re saying you can read this text?” Teabing exclaimed. “Quite easily,” Sophie chimed, obviously enjoying herself now. “My grandfather taught me this language when I was only six years old. I’m fluent (p. 325).”

Sophie’s existence helps in building the conflict because if it is not for

Sophie, Sauniere will not leave any clue to solve his puzzle because of his love to his granddaughter that makes he does all the things. All clues are related to Sophie 54

and her past. It is Sophie too who decides to take away the car from the bank and take them to Teabing’s place, without knowing that the car has a tracking device that leads the police to go to Teabing’s castle and find all the surveillance equipment. From that evidence, the police finally know who the real villain is.

The setting changes to London where they all go to the Temple Church in order to find the second riddle’s answer. Apparently, Remy who is the accomplice of the Teacher frees Silas and they take the cryptex and Teabing as hostage.

Again, Teabing’s characterization of being a man who is good at outwitting people plays his part. The Teacher tricks them by ordering Silas to hide in Opus

Dei’s residence and make an anonymous call to the police informing Silas’ position and then he killed Remy. Teabing does that spontaneously, since he is a smart guy, it will not be a big deal for him to make a spontaneous plan. Also in this part, Silas’ characterization of determination and strength play their part. He has been tied and beaten but his power and determination keep him strong and he can still manage to take the cryptex, if he is not as strong as he is in the story, the whole outline will be different, there even a big possibility that it will fail and the story will not reach its complication. c. Climax

From all the conflicts that happen in the complication part, the final conflict occurs when the Teacher reveals his true identity to Langdon and Sophie. Up to this part, the story finally reaches its climax. Teabing is characterized as a man who is obsessed to the Holy Grail, here the readers can see clearly how his characterization plays its part because his obsession with Holy Grail becomes his 55

motivation to do all the bad things including trying to kill Sophie so Langdon wants to give him the answer to the puzzle.

Sophie stared deep into Teabing’s eyes and spoke in a steely tone. “I will never swear an oath with my grandfather’s murderer. Except that an oath that I will see you go to the prison.” Teabing’s heart turned to grave, then resolute. “I am sorry you feel that way, mademoiselle.” He turned and aimed the gun at Langdon. “And you, Robert? Are you with me, or against me? (p.445)”

The readers can feel the high tension as Teabing gives Langdon two options: to choose between Holy Grail or Sophie. As stated before, Teabing’s mad obsession drives him to do everything to get his goal and this time he does his last cruel action. However, this time Langdon successfully outwitting Teabing. The plot of the story will have no climax without Teabing and other minor characters that have helped in building the conflicts through their action.

3. End

This part shows the falling action and the denouement. The minor characters have contributed in developing the plot from the very beginning until the complication and climax with their own ways and characterizations. After going through all conflicts that end up in climax, the readers will see what kind of ending that happen in the story. Here, the solution of the complications shows a happy ending for all the antagonists. a. Falling action

The story then reaches the falling action part. Falling action shows the result of the events that occur in the complication part. Sauniere contribute indirectly 56

here because Langdon uses Sauniere’s characterization as the guide to answer the last cryptex puzzle. Since Sauniere’s characterization is as a man who loves art and history, Langdon manages to reveal the answer after he puts his mind like

Sauniere’s. If Sauniere is characterized differently, for example, as the man who loves science not art, surely Langdon will not finds the real answer.

Place yourself in Sauniere’s mind, he urged, gazing outward now into College Garden. What would he believe is believe is the orb that ought to be ion Newton’s tomb? Images of stars, comets and planets twinkled in the falling rain, but Langdon ignored them. Sauniere was not a man of science. He was a man of humanity, of art, of history. The sacred feminine…the chalice. the Rose… the banished Mary Magdalene… the decline of the goddess… the Holy Grail…(p.451)

Teabing’s mad obsession to Holy Grail causes himself a harm because

Langdon outwit him back, if he is not portrayed as Holy Grail worshipper,

Langdon will not be able to outwit him. Teabing gets so shocked when Langdon throws the cryptex away, he lets go of Sophie from his arms and tries to grab the cryptex. Since the only thing in his mind is the cryptex, he will do anything to save it. After that, the police arrest him based on the evidence they found in his house.

b. Denouement

The story is ended in a happy ending. Sauniere’s love to his granddaughter leads Langdon and Sophie to Rosslyn Chapel where the real secret revealed that

Sophie’s brother and grandmother are still alive. It appears that Sauniere’s goal in giving all the puzzles is to lead Sophie to her long lost family. After Sophie 57

finally meets her family, the truth revealed that it is Sauniere’s goal to lead Sophie to her long lost family.

The woman threw her arms around Sophie, the tears flowing faster. “Your grandfather wanted so badly to tell you everything. But things were difficult between you two. He tried so hard. There’s so much to explain. So very much to explain. “She kissed Sophie’s forehead once again, then whispered in her ear. “No more secrets, princess. It’s time you learn the truth about your family. (p. 475)”

In addition, the readers’ expectation to see Langdon and Sophie to have special relationship seems to be fulfilled. Sophie’s beauty and smartness have attracted Langdon from beginning, but it appears more obviously in the last part.

The last part of the story shows Langdon finally understand the real meaning of the answer from the puzzle. It can be concluded that the last part of the story is interfered by one of Sauniere’s characteristic, a man who loves his family so much.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

This chapter contains the conclusion of all the analysis in the previous chapters. From the analysis, it can be found that the minor characters give some contribution in the development of the plot of the story. Their contribution is revealed based on the facts in the story that is related to the characterization of each minor character. The development of the plot is affected by the action that the minor characters make.

The first problem formulation finds out the characterization of each minor character based on the facts in the story. The second one finds the pattern of the plot and how it develops. The minor characters are Jacques Sauniere, Sophie Neveu, Silas and Sir Leigh Teabing. Jacques Sauniere’s role in developing the plot is when he creates the initial position in the beginning part. His characterization is a mysterious riddle lover, so after his death, he leaves a mysterious numeric puzzle that allows his granddaughter, Sophie to enter the story because she works as cryptologist. In the middle part, his puzzle that leads to another puzzle becomes one of the main problems that the main character has to face. His another characterization is a family man, therefore all his clues are aimed to a place where Sophie can finds his long lost family.

Silas’ role is when he also creates the initial position in the beginning. Great determination and powerful man are his characterization and it can be seen clearly in

58

59

all of his actions. After he kills Sauniere, Silas continues to be the obstacles to

Langdon. He successfully manages to steal the keystone and give it to the Teacher.

He also attacks Langdon and Sophie several times. Without his presence, the complication will not have any conflict. His last action in taking away the keystone, allows the plot to reach the climax.

Sir Leigh Teabing also plays his role in the story as the obstacle because he is the main brain of all the problems in the story. In the beginning, he plays his role indirectly because he does not show up but he is the man who commands Silas to kill

Sauniere. In the middle part, his characterization as a great liar and good at outwitting other people is seen obviously. He appears as two characters: The mysterious teacher and Sir Leigh Teabing, a great helper. When he appears as Teabing, he helps the protagonist in cracking Sauniere’s puzzle but when he appears as the Teacher, he outwits and kills people so he can get what he wants. In the climax, he surprises everybody when he reveals his true identity. His great lie makes nobody thinks he is the real antagonist. His role as great helper and main obstacle in the middle part makes allows the climax to happen. His entire plan in the beginning and the middle reach its peak in the climax. In the falling action, that shows the outcome of the problem, where he get caught makes Langdon able to clean up his name of all charges.

Sophie as the last minor character plays her part in the whole story from the beginning to the end. She always becomes the helper in all part of the story. Her intelligence makes her able to do that. Her first action is when she helps Langdon

60

with her smart plan moves the plot to the middle part. In the middle part, she helps

Langdon in most of the conflicts that occurs in the complication part. Without

Sophie, it is impossible for Langdon to survive in the conflicts. Her existence is important because she is the reason Sauniere leaves all the puzzles. In the last part of the story, Sophie and Langdon seem to fulfil the reader’s expectation to see them together because they seem to have special relationship.

The conclusion given above clearly shows the role of each minor character in contributing to the development of the plot of the story as the helper and also as the obstacle for the main character. The writer finds that the minor characters have important role in a work of literature, in this case, a novel. They might not have a big part in the story but their existences affect the story so much. Without them, the story will not happen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1981.

Forster, E.M. Aspects of the Novels and Related Writings. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1974.

Guerin, Wilfred L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 4nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992.

Henkle, Roger B. Reading the Novel: An Introduction to the Techniques Interpreting Fiction. New York: Harper and Row Publisher Ltd., 1965.

Holman, C. Hugh and William Harmon. A Handbook to Literature. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.

Kenney, William. How to Analyze Fiction. New York: Monarch Press, 1966.

Koesnosoebroto, Sunaryo Basuki. The Anatomy of Prose Fiction. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988.

Murphy, M.J. Understanding Unseens: an Introduction to English Poetry and the English Novel for Overseas Students. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1972.

Oktaviani, Elisabeth Grace. Did Jesus Mary Magdalena - a Study on the Functions of Christian Jargon in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2006.

Perrine, Laurence. Literature: Structure, Sound and Sense. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., 1974.

Reaske, Alexander Russell. How to Analyze Drama. New York: Monarch Press, 1966.

Seta, Martinus Arya. a Study of Symbols Presented in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code: a Semiotic Analysis. Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2006.

Stanton, Robert. An Introduction to Fiction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc, 1965.

61