Well, I am in the middle of being part of a blog tour now for Ruth Mcnally Barshaw, and I also interviewed two other authors the previous two weeks. I am answering questions next week, myself.
I like these things because I have a bit of the voyeur in me, as I think many of us do. I love seeing what other artists’ studios look like for that very same reason (that is my favorite of these sorts of things); it helps me understand how their minds work and what the creative process is like for them. It’s also why I enojy hearing the speakers at SCBWI New York; I hope I will get a little peek into how they do what they do.
What is the purpose of this info? Well, maybe we can apply it to our own quests for success in our writing or artwork. When you see how someone else solves an “issue” or carves out a space within which to write or draw, you can have hope that you can, too, despite the odds.
As for the questions–well, I think it is a fine line between putting too much of the “interviewer” into the questions, as opposed to the interview being about the “interviewee.” Catie Couric is an example of someone who was the absolute worst interviewer; she was always making sure she got her own views in before or during asking questions of guests, so that it was really all about Catie. She used to drive me crazy. So questions can be creative, but not too much so.
Sometimes complex questions can inspire the more reticent person who is being interviewed. But even short, simple questions can be effective if the person involved is willing to share in an open and creative way. It helps if someone knows the interviewee a little bit, because the questions can coax out back-stories known to the person asking, that are worth knowing to the readers.
Anyway, they are darn fun.