ONCE IN A GREAT CITY is a history book, and it reads like a history book. In other words, it contains lots and lots of information, but it's not a page turner. I want to read page turners, so perhaps this review is not fair to David Maraniss, considering all the extensive research he did for this.

But I saw this book on at least one best-of-the-month list and read that it told how, even with all the greatness of people and events in Detroit during the early 1960s, there were signs that the city was going to fall apart. This is not how I understand the book.

Granted, there are examples throughout of the city's greatness in the early 1960s, mainly the rise of Motown music, cars (particularly the Mustang), civil rights, and unionization. But so much of that ends up being political. And the political discussions are, as political discussions always are, the way some people, not all of them, saw what took place. A reader should be suspicious of an author's objectivity when he writes about politics or, at least, the objectivity of his sources.

The only discussion I see of signs of the city's downfall is a Wayne State University prediction. Yes, when Detroiters, both black and white, had the means to do so, they moved to the suburbs. But why? Something Maraniss presents as great wasn't. That's what should be discussed. What was wrong and could have been prevented?