Introduction

In adaptation studies, examining both story and thematic fidelity can comprehensively reveal how and why source texts are transformed.1 Successful adaptations typically respect the original work’s spirit. Simultaneously, they must transform the material to suit the demands and opportunities of a new medium. However, this balance between fidelity and transformation is not limited to official adaptations. To delve deeper into this issue, this study explores the intricate adaptation relationship between Herman Melville’s novel Moby-Dick; or The Whale (1851) and Ron Howard’s film In the Heart of the Sea (2015). The film adapts Nathaniel Philbrick’s nonfiction work In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex (2000), which chronicles the real-life whaling disaster that inspired Melville’s Moby-Dick.2 Although the film is not a direct adaptation of Melville’s novel, both works draw from the same historical event. This shared foundation offers a unique lens for examining how story and thematic fidelity operate when transforming an original story into a reimagined narrative. The relationship between Melville’s novel and Howard’s film is complex, particularly in their parallel treatments of survival. To unpack these connections, I begin with Moby-Dick’s ending.

In Moby-Dick, Captain Ahab dies in his final vengeful encounter with the giant sperm whale, uttering, “Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! And since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!” (Melville 623). These prove to be Ahab’s final words. Tangled in the harpoon’s rope, he slips beneath the waves and vanishes before his crew even notices he is gone. Most film adaptations of Moby-Dick portray Ahab’s climactic death dramatically. For example, in the 1956 film adaptation, his final words are, “From hell’s heart I stab at thee! For hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee, thou damned whale!” (Moby Dick). He then sinks into the sea, still clinging to the whale’s back. The next moment, Ahab’s corpse, bound to the whale, emerges from the sea. As predicted by Elijah before the Pequod’s departure from Nantucket, the dead Ahab beckons to the other crewmembers, seemingly inviting them to the world of death (see Figure 1).3 Subsequent adaptations (the 1998 television movie and 2011 television miniseries) follow the dramatic ending introduced in the 1956 adaptation, although the ways Ahab’s death is depicted differ.

By examining various film adaptations of Moby-Dick, I question whetherAhab’s death is truly inevitable within these different storyworlds. While Ahab’s dramatic death scene has become a narrative convention, this was not always the case. Before the 1956 Moby Dick, adaptations took surprising liberties with the ending. Early films like The Sea Beast (1926) and Moby Dick (1930) departed radically from Melville’s story: their version of Ahab survives his vengeful pursuit of the white whale and reunites with his beloved. This raises an intriguing question: what drives such extreme reimagining of the original story?

To explore this question, I look beyond official adaptations to examine In the Heart of the Sea. This film reimagines its source material by introducing a frame story: Melville himself appears as a character, interviewing a survivor while working on his novel. This creative choice opens up a dialogue between fidelity and innovation—between staying true to the source material and exploring new narrative possibilities. These encompass the complex workings of what I call storyworld revisioning, referring to the intentional revision and re-envisioning of the spatiotemporal entirety that already exists in literature, film, television, or other forms of media. This process of revisioning prompts a re-evaluation of the challenges related to fidelity and reconsiders narrative elements and character histories, envisioning alternate timelines and transforming established plot developments. I maintain that even if the storyworld undergoes adjustments, the fidelity to the original narrative remains intact. A reimagining of the storyworld is unachievable without an awareness of faithfulness to the source material. I delve into these complexities of storyworld revisioning and fidelity in adaptation by examining the alterations of Moby-Dick and its reinterpretation in In the Heart of the Sea.

To fully discuss this idea, some basic knowledge of narrative theory and adaptation studies is essential. Building on Marie-Laure Ryan’s storyworlds, as well as key ideas on narrativity, experientiality, and fidelity by theorists like James Phelan, David Herman, Monika Fludernik, and Robert Stam, I focus on the metafictional frame story in In the Heart of the Sea. My analysis examines how its storyworld revisioning reframes both the story and thematic fidelity to Moby-Dick. Additionally, I investigate the reimagining process that creates a revised storyworld in In the Heart of the Sea,by balancing fidelity and the exploration of narrative possibilities, referencing the previous film adaptations of Moby-Dick.

Framing Metafictional Imagination: The Storyworld Revisioning Process

The concepts of fidelity and storyworld are intertwined in adaptation, with fidelity ensuring the storyworld’s integrity and consistency, while the unique demands and opportunities of different media and creative reimagining often necessitate adjustments and expansions. Marie-Laure Ryan’s insightful analysis of storyworlds reveals how they can be key to balancing fidelity to the source material, recreating the story, and examining complex issues related to reimagining existing stories: “Through the formula what is, what if, as if, [she hopes] to inspire reflection on the ontological and experiential (or phenomenological) implications of storyworlds” (7). I argue that Ryan considers the idea of storyworld as central to our experience of narratives and as constituting a framework to understand and interpret the events and existents in the story. By creating a rich and detailed storyworld that does not directly represent reality but rather a fictional construct subject to the rules and conventions of the respective narrative genre, writers immerse their readers in engaging and captivating stories in specific times and places.4

Ryan argues that storyworlds function as mental models for understanding and interpreting both real-life situations and fictional contexts. Readers or viewers construct these models through their past experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions. This perspective is grounded in cognitive science research. Mental models serve as constructs that guide multiple cognitive processes: perception, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. They help individuals make sense of complex information in a manageable way.5 My concept of storyworld revisioning is based on this cognitive restructuring of an existing story, where individuals modify their mental models to incorporate new information or alternative narrative perspectives. Revisioning involves adjusting the relationships among different story elements or altering the underlying assumptions about the storyworld.

Adaptation involves a mental-model-based transformation of the storyworld, where this transformed storyworld becomes the basis for assessing fidelity. Viewing fidelity through the lens of mental (re)construction of the storyworld clarifies the implicit revisioning relationship between Melville’s Moby-Dick and Howard’s In the Heart of the Sea. The film is a unique and anomalous example of adaptation, derived from Philbrick’s text that recounts the true story of the harrowing voyage of the whaleship Essex in 1820 through the hardships the crew endured for over three months. There are several differences between Howard’s film and Philbrick’s book: characterization and drama, simplification of events, visual and emotional impacts, and fictionalization. To clarify these revisioning processes from the adapted text to the film, I analyze the characterization of the central character, Owen Chase, the first mate of the Essex. Both present Chase as a skilled and experienced whaler. Ambitious, hardworking, and resourceful even in the face of adversity, Chase is driven by his desire to provide for his family and rise above his humble background. However, some aspects of his character differ significantly between the two versions. The book depicts him as a slightly more pragmatic and less emotional person, reflected in how he manages the difficult circumstances of the whale hunt and its tragic aftermath; he is level-headed, analytical, and emotionally aloof. In the film, Chase’s character is completely different: He is passionate and empathetic, sharing a close emotional bond with other crewmembers. Rather than portraying Chase as a mere witness to the disaster, filmmakers (Howard and screenwriter Charles Leavitt, in particular) characterize him as ambitious, but also caring toward his companions; courageous, and possessing strong leadership skills (see Figure 2).

What stands out when the two versions differ so significantly? Philbrick’s text remains neutral, depicting the development of historical events in a matter-of-fact manner, while Howard’s film adaptation identifies Chase as a central character and reimagines him as an unfazed, outspoken, and responsible person who never loses his sense of solidarity. The film’s primary aim is not to trace the nonfictional sequence of historical events but to enhance the possibility of storytelling and the magic of narrative wonder suited to another happy-ending and less ill-fated version of the Moby-Dick-related storyworld.

As typically represented by the changes in Chase’s character development, revisioning has the potential to reimagine the storyworld in various ways. The storyworld of In the Heart of the Sea has more pronounced characteristics, including the addition of story elements that could not exist in reality. According to Ryan’s ontological distinction among storyworlds,6 Howard’s film presents a “what if” world, in which the author Melville struggles with his new work. Bearing this in mind, I focus on the presence of the frame story, which is inserted intermittently throughout the film, paying special attention to the opening section: An unnamed narrator, voiced by Ben Whishaw, speaks of the mystery of the deep ocean, describing how the ocean has captivated the human imagination throughout history and mentioning legends of giant sea monsters and terrifying stories of sailors who go missing in the vast expanse of the sea, as the visuals and haunting music enhance the sense of fear and awe (see Figure 3):

How does one come to know the unknowable? What faculties must a man possess? Since it was discovered that whale oil could light our cities in ways never achieved before, it created global demand. It has pushed man to venture further and further into the deep blue unknown. We know not its depth, nor the host of creatures that live there. Monsters. Are they real? (In the Heart of the Sea)

As the frame story unfolds, we learn that the narrator is Melville (Whishaw). An important aspect of In the Heart of the Sea’s storyworld is that it reframes the historical events recounted in Philbrick’s text and recreates a new story sequence in a completely different manner.7 Instead of maintaining the neutral perspective of a nonfictional account, a frame narrative is developed with a fictional Melville—added for dramatic effect (and to augment the self-reflexive dimension of the unfolding story)—as an intermediary between the narrated events and the film’s audience (see Figure 4).

Furthermore, Melville’s struggles as an author seeking inspiration for his next work are the primary focus of the film’s construction of a metafictional treatment of the objective perspective-based source material. While searching for a true story to write about, Melville asks Thomas Nickerson, the last survivor of the Essex, for a firsthand account of its sinking and subsequent events. The film then portrays flashbacks of the Essex’s voyage, narrated by old Nickerson, who reluctantly accepts Melville’s offer and describes how a massive whale attacked the ship and caused it to sink, leaving the crewmembers stranded at sea for months. Nickerson also confesses that they struggled to survive and even resorted to cannibalism. However, this visit to Nickerson’s inn is completely fictional. In reality, as mentioned by Philbrick, an author other than Melville visited Nickerson in the 1870s (not 1850, a year before Moby-Dick’s publication) and proposed that Nickerson write the text recounting the true events of the Essex.8 If Melville visited Nickerson in 1850, it could create a contradiction regarding Nickerson’s age. Judging from the film, he appears to be in his 60s, which corresponds to his actual age in the 1870s. However, the film does not address this issue.

In this respect, In the Heart of the Sea abandons historical accuracy and emphasizes the metafictional nature of the story in the film’s portrayal of the relationship between the author—the fictional Melville in this case—and the events recounted by Nickerson. While Nickerson’s confession is regarded as a visual representation of a straightforward account of the events during the tragic voyage, it might only be a mental representation; a sequence of events in Melville’s mind. The main body of the film can be considered as his hypothetical novel (still unfinished at this point). Although the extent to which Melville’s creative intervention shapes Nickerson’s confession remains unclear and open to interpretation, the presence of the future author of Moby-Dick likely provided a new perspective of the events, which Nickerson might not have foreseen. Thus, instead of faithfully translating Philbrick’s nonfiction into a different medium, the film focuses on Melville as a crucial link between the authenticity of the dictated events and his creative struggles as a writer, presenting him as a symbol of storytelling’s capacity to inspire and move people. This metafictional portrayal of Melville highlights the structural and thematic characteristics of the film’s storyworld, clarifying how the story in the film deviates not only from historical facts but also from Philbrick’s text. The film emphasizes the connection to the writing process of Moby-Dick rather than adhering faithfully to historical records.

Narrativity, Experientiality, and Merging of Storyworlds

The complex relationship between Moby-Dick and In the Heart of the Sea raises questions about how stories evolve across different tellings. To understand this evolution, we need to examine two key concepts that shape how stories are told and received: narrativity and experientiality.9 Narrativity indicates the qualities or elements that make a narrative identifiable as a story. This encompasses the structuring of events, the presence of a plot, characters, and settings, as well as the spatiotemporal and causal relationships between events. While narrativity is the capacity to express events or experiences through a story, experientiality points to the way narratives convey and evoke the lived experiences of characters, immersing the reader or audience in the subjective world of those characters. This concept highlights the sensory, emotional, and psychological dimensions of narratives, emphasizing the human experience within the story. Narrativity and experientiality fundamentally shape our perception of reality and enhance our ability to communicate this perception through storytelling. As narrativity provides a framework to illuminate events by organizing experiences into a cohesive sequence, the stories we experience enable us to connect separate events and experiences into a meaningful and complete entity, adding coherence and direction to our lives. Conversely, as an unfiltered, raw experience characterized by immediacy, experientiality underscores how narratives evoke or represent the subjective experiences of characters or audiences, allowing for a deeper, more emotional engagement with the story.

The interplay between narrativity and experientiality in old Nickerson’s story in In the Heart of the Sea works as a traumatic yet redemptive experience that he has never shared with anyone. While recounting the events he wanted to keep buried within his heart, Nickerson starts regarding the story as not simply an experience of suffering, fear, and survival, which constitute his distressing memories, but as a narrative of courage, hope, and camaraderie. To Nickerson, it is more than just another seafaring story (see Figure 5). Despite invoking traumatic memories, the narrative is a powerful tool that heals Nickerson from the trauma, creating a sense of experientiality in everyone who listens to it, including Nickerson’s wife, Melville, and the film’s audience, who update their own narrative experience by empathizing with Nickerson’s emotional healing.

The narrativity derived from In the Heart of the Sea influences the audience’s experientialities, making them feel as if the story is a remake of Moby-Dick. Presenting different spatiotemporal configurations and event sequences from those of Melville’s novel, the film’s storyworld complements or modifies10 the pre-existing storyworlds related to Moby-Dick. While the storyworld is based on truth (as recounted in Philbrick’s nonfiction), it does not adhere to fidelity, thus enabling the audience to perceive what could have happened to Pequod’s crew had it not been wrecked. We cannot determine this intricate narrativity in In the Heart of the Sea before experiencing Melville’s original Moby-Dick or any of its film adaptations. In the Heart of the Sea offers an engaging case of challenging the issue of fidelity by balancing narrativity and experientiality. Through various storytelling techniques, such as flashbacks and multiple focal characters which create captivating scenes, the film enhances the complexity and multidimensionality of a classic tale of crisis and adventure. It focuses on its characters’ psychological and emotional experiences, revealing how the human spirit can endure unimaginable hardships.

In the Heart of the Sea is not simply a film adaptation of Philbrick’s book in a straightforward sense. It reimagines not only the storyworld of the source text but also Melville’s Moby-Dick and the earlier film adaptations derived from it, in a narratively strategic manner. Next, I consider this narrative strategy shaped by the interplay of complex narrativity and experientiality and examine how the storyworlds of Moby-Dick and Howard’s film merge into one, subsuming real-life events and fictional creation within the metafictional frame of storytelling wherein both story and thematic fidelity have been forsaken. One significant difference between the storyworlds of Moby-Dick and In the Heart of the Sea lies in their approaches to their themes. Ahab’s obsession with killing the white whale leads to his demise and the destruction of his ship and crew. Moby-Dick delves into the relationship between humans and nature and presents the white whale as a symbol of entities beyond human understanding or control. In displaying the themes of obsession and the human–nature relationship, In the Heart of the Sea also emphasizes the themes of endurance, survival, and reconciliation with nature.

If such thematic differences produce narrative differences, does the main plot of the film hint at the plot of the novel Melville would have written? In the film, after Nickerson’s confession, Melville says, “Maybe it wasn’t a plot I was after. Something else you’ve given me tonight. The courage to go where one does not want to go. [. . .] It will be a work of fiction, Mr. Nickerson, inspired by truth” (In the Heart of the Sea). The narration at the beginning of the film, which explores the awe and mystery of the vast ocean, is resolved by this line from Melville. The film deliberately eschews the story fidelity to Philbrick’s source text because, as previously mentioned, it emphasizes the narrative possibility that Nickerson’s confession influences or is influenced by Melville’s literary imagination. The visuals in the film may be a manifestation of the storyworld conceived by Melville. We can imagine that Melville in the film would write a novel thematically faithful to Nickerson’s account, namely, the film’s main narrative. Accordingly, in the film’s storyworld, Moby-Dick would likely be a fascinating and thought-provoking tale of human survival enriched by Melville’s nuanced writing and philosophical musings. His reflections do not indicate interest in another seafaring adventure story but rather a search for a thoughtful, meaningful narrative that represents the human condition and characters’ deeper motivations. Melville’s renewed plot would be a complex meditation on obsession, revenge, and the struggle and reconciliation between human beings and nature, with a profound examination of the human psyche and the nature of existence.

In In the Heart of the Sea, Melville recognizes the need to move beyond genre conventions to explore deeper and more universal themes. The ending of the film reflects this sense of storytelling, making us feel as if the novel the fictional Melville would write is entirely different from the real Moby-Dick. Nickerson’s story concludes on a reconciliatory note between Chase and Captain George Pollard, and the master–disciple relationship and mutual understanding that develops between Chase and young Nickerson. Although the crew’s suffering and loss lend a melancholic tone, In the Heart of the Sea ends on a positive note.11

Open to varying degrees of individual interpretation, this is another possible ending in Moby-Dick that ultimately renounces fidelity to not only the story of the real Moby-Dick and its faithful film adaptations but also the earliest 1926 and 1930 films, where Ahab survives, exacting his revenge on the white whale. In the 1930 Moby Dick, after the final confrontation, Ahab reunites with his beloved, achieving a hopeful resolution to his arduous journey (see Figure 6). Compared to such an absurdly unrealistic ending that completely rewrites Melville’s original, In the Heart of the Sea has a more realistic and peaceful ending. The scene where the whale decides not to retaliate once Chase puts down his harpoon is a moment of redemption, highlighting the importance of respecting and coexisting with nature, rather than attempting to dominate or conquer it. It is noteworthy that the earliest film adaptations suggest a narrative possibility where Ahab does not die. However, In the Heart of the Sea goes further by having Chase (as a replacement character for Ahab) survive, and by providing a peaceful ending. The whale, as Moby-Dick, leaves without destroying the boat and Chase reunites with his wife and young daughter. Storyworld revisioning in In the Heart of the Sea addresses the challenges of fidelity by incorporating changes to characters, events, and themes for dramatic effect, as well as to appeal to a modern audience. The film takes liberties with historical facts and succeeds as a twisted yet compelling and well-executed adaptation of Moby-Dick,representing the true story of the crew’s hardships and salvation, implying a possible reconciliation of humans with nature.

Conclusion

A narrative can be revised for various reasons, such as updating a story for modern audiences, expanding a franchise, or simply improving the original version. This revisioning can result in the rearrangement of the pre-existing story based on changes in its characters, settings, and plots. At the beginning of this essay, I asked whether Ahab is destined to die in the end whenever the storyworld of Moby-Dick is adapted. This is not the case. Although Ahab does die in the versions that are faithful to Melville’s source text, it is not necessarily so in every variation. As mentioned earlier, in both the 1926 and 1930 film adaptations, Ahab survives. However, such cases are rare; almost all derivative narratives, particularly those released after the 1956 film adaptation, foreground Ahab’s death scene as a tragic and heroic event, where his dramatic death scene becomes the standard mental model for the ending.

Unlike most previous film adaptations of Moby-Dick, In the Heart of the Sea betrays the story and thematic fidelity to the established narrative progression leading to Ahab’s dramatic death. Although it depicts the historical backdrop without strictly adhering to the nonfictional description of the incident – inspiring Melville to write Moby-Dick depicting the downfall of humanity – the film renounces both story fidelity to Phibrick’s text and thematic fidelity to Melville’s novel. However, this makes In the Heart of the Sea recognizable as a story that is restructured with Melville’s text as its blueprint, albeit a loosely adapted version of it. It modifies true events where necessary and touches on some of the novel’s themes and motifs, such as obsession, revenge, and the relationship between humans and nature, though in a different context. In this respect, In the Heart of the Sea is a typical example of the revisioning of Moby-Dick, with a distorted sense of fidelity. It may be purely coincidental that the film seems to demonstrate fidelity not to the narratives that tell the dramatic story of Ahab’s doom, but rather to the 1926 and 1930 adaptations’ optimistic stories. Nevertheless, this film has undeniably expanded the narrative possibilities surrounding Moby-Dick. The film revisits real-life events and reimagines the characters and story to suit contemporary sensibilities; the film takes creative liberties to present an updated narrative that can renew the storytelling potential of the classic novel and captivate modern audiences.

The storyworld is reinvented in every narrative experience with varying degrees of fidelity. The goal of revisioning is to breathe new life into an established storyworld while remaining faithful to the core elements that have made it popular among audiences. Adaptations of the same source text reveal infinite possibilities for revisioning, demonstrating how storyworlds can be renewed even between adaptations with no direct relationship to each other. Examining the interaction between storyworld revisioning and issues of fidelity in adaptation is beyond the scope of this essay, but I have demonstrated that the revisioning observed in In the Heart of the Sea requires careful implementation to ensure that the new elements of the story cohesively fit the narrative that is derived from and transforms the setting of Moby-Dick’s storyworld.

Storyworld revisioning offers adaptation scholars a valuable new lens for understanding how narratives evolve across different media and cultures. This framework reveals two key processes: how audiences cognitively reinterpret familiar stories, and how creators consciously reshape existing storyworlds to embrace new ideologies and aesthetic possibilities. Examining these processes deepens our understanding of narrative authority as fluid rather than fixed, highlighting the collaborative relationship between original texts, adaptations, and audiences. Moreover, storyworld revisioning helps us track how broader contextual changes—from shifting social norms to technological advances—influence story practices. This approach ultimately illustrates adaptation as an ongoing, participatory process rather than a one-time transformation.