Maybe the answer is that one can never be sure of producing the effects one wants. Maybe a history writer should think of him or herself as a composer. I think I can settle for that. A book on a shelf has a sort of immortality. But the problem is not just an aesthetic one.
Every narrator has to produce effects as well.
The turgid command respect for seeming to be scholarly. Being 'only an ordinary historian' is a coy boast. Ever since the 'enlightened' discovered perspective, being the spectator has allowed one to bumble words for the sake of appearing to be honest. Plain-speaking is seen to be untheatrical, even if it is theatre of another sort. Indeed, being literary when one is meant to be something else is seen as somewhat feminine.