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
i
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
Dre
Live
eam as if
e as if yo
iv
you wil
ou will d
ll live fo
die tomo
orever
T
Ama
v
This is f
vi
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.
viii
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
ix
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.
x
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.
1
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.
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.
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.
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
5
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.
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).
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.
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)”.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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).
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
20
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.
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
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.
contribution of minor characters in developing the plot, the writer used several theories taken from proper books after the data were collected before.
24
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
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 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.
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.
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).
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
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).
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).”
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).
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:
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:
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:
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).
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.
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.
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).
“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
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.
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
mansion and in London. The police always somehow manage to track their position but Langdon and Sophie always run away successfully.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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!
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).”
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
