I guess that depends on your definition of 'dry' writing. It's probably unavoidable that someone will find your (or mine or anyone's) writing dry, and someone else will find it wonderful.
To ME dry writing tends to have a lot of detail and accomplish absolutely nothing. JRR Tolkien - brilliant writer, one can't argue with the Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien had a tendency to wander.
"And so came Varilance, the chosen, a broadsword three feet long and eight inches wide made of the finest steel from the Mines of Bhaza-Kalum before the raid of the Witch King in 792 S.A. in which the Witch King, had the head of forty-eight ogres, nineteen thousand goblins and seventy ill-tempered men all named Bob, did defeat the dwarves in a nineteen month, three week, two day battle. Varilance was forged in the fires of Tir Agnar, the Fire of Purity, which was held in safety in Rivendell until spirited away by an evil hobbit in 895 S.A. only to fall into a river and promptly go out because the Fire of Purity apparently needed oxygen. Thus passed the Fire of Purity, which in the old tongue is 'Al-rath-shalon' though no one now knows the old tongue, and even if they did they would probably say Al-rith-shalon which means the Flame of Purity and is often mistaken for Tal-rith-shalon, or a woman's virtue. Where were we? Oh yes, Varilance..."
In my book you can get away with a lot of detail if you stick to the point (as my example clearly didn't), and stick some action in there.
"Varilance, the Chosen, forged by dwarves in elven fire flashed in the moonlight as Bob the ill-tempered drew it from its jeweled and gold encrusted scabbard."
Here I find history book type AARs are vulnerable to being dry because...well, most history books ARE dry. I think you're okay in this regard so long as the reader knows you're going somewhere with this paragraph, you give them a reason to care what happens, and you'll get there in short order. Mettermrck's 'Advantages' was good at this, as was Machiavellians' '54-40'. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to hear 'Advantages' for example was more popular with Americans than Europeans, because Mett concentrated on the American political process and naturally we'd be more curious about that. I expect Draco Rexus' "For King and Country" to develop a British following for the same reason.
For example I don't WANT to hear about the political machinations of your six parties unless 1) the upcoming election's volatile, 2) something unusual happens like an assassination, or 3) it's bad news if one of the parties wins. THEN it's interesting. Tell me enough about the parties to care who wins and I'll follow you. If I can't tell the difference between the French Democratic Party, the French Socialist Party, the French Communist Party, and the French Peoples Republican Party then I really don't care who wins and I can pretty much skip anything about this election. In fact I'd probably start rooting for the French Fascist Party just for variety.