I set out above two models to illustrate what I believe to be the fundamental processes of creating and identifying history and fiction. I commented generally on the models earlier, but will do so again in some more detail here.
I do not address the details of narrative/authorial voice or the specifics of rhetorical techniques here, but rather I attempt to point out where and why those "devices" are significant for identifying a work as "history" or "fiction". If we can agree on their significance here then we can perhaps know if it is worthwhile discussing the specific details of what those devices consist of.
In the first model of the process of creating and recognizing "history":
Creating history
1. The historian selects material from various sources to create a historical narrative. Both the selection and the narrative will be determined by the historian's interests etc. That is, history is “created” by the historian; history does not exist “out there” whole but what happened must be inferred through selection and interpretation of various sources, both primary and secondary.
2. The historian does not merely repeat the content of the sources used but infers from those sources that certain events happened, and it is those inferred conclusions and beliefs that the historian sets out in a narrative order. Hence the slight variation in colour coding between the sources used and the details or events inferred from those sources and written down in the narrative. This narrative order, the details of the narrative, the emphases given to some events over others, are all determined by the historian according to the historian's interests, biases, assumptions about audience expectations, etc.
Indicating history
The historian will also introduce and frame the narrative by indicating to his readership that he is indeed writing a historical narrative and how it compares with other known historical narratives about the same general topic, or why it is of significance if it is the first of its kind.
All of this is done by the historian adopting a narrative voice with which to present and frame the narrative. Through this voice the historian generally seeks to give readers reasons to have confidence in the historical narrative. The historian will often explicitly identify himself and inform readers of his background; he will inform the readership how he came by his information – sometimes very specifically, other times more generally.
Recognizing history
3. Because of the personal narrative voice and references to sources the audience is able to form a judgement about the value of the historical narrative. One often sees within the narrative the historian's voice appealing to his readers why they should accept his scepticism regarding certain sources and stories, or his preference for other sources or stories of the past.
Contrast the author of “historical fiction”
Creating "fiction"
1. The primary function of the narrative produced by this author is not to argue for “what actually happened”; rather, it may primarily be for purposes of a philosophical or theological allegory, or pure light-hearted entertainment, or parody, or any number of other functions. Accordingly, much more than historical sources (primary and secondary) inspire the final narrative: other myths, creative imagination, snippets from conversations, other texts such as epics, plays, novels, etc. come into play.
2. The author constructs from all of these various sources a new narrative that is “not history”, but “fiction” even if it has historical details within it.
Indicating "fiction"
The author presents the story through a narrative voice and literary devices that alert readers to the nature of what sort of narrative is being read: historical fiction or parody or allegory, etc. In each case the particular voice and literary devices used indicate what type of narrative is being presented to the reader.
Recognizing "fiction"
3. The audience accordingly knows they are reading historical fiction or parody or allegory etc because the author has indicated so.
Some less sophisticated readers confuse what they are reading and interpret historical fiction as genuine history (as Lucian himself lamented), but more informed readers will always be able to point to the clear literary markers (the narrative voice and literary devices) of fiction. Authors generally write for readers who they expect will appreciate the true nature of their work.
If the processes I have set out are not considered genuine reflections of the processes then I need to understand why and at what points they break down.