Curious about your thoughts on author interviews.

It depends on how much time I have and how entertaining or informative the interview is...plus, if I've already read similar questions and answers.

I agree that it depends on the author. If the person is humourous and engaging - then I love a long interview! I think balance is also important. A good balance between writing related questions, the books and the author's life.

I'm more likely to read a long interview with an author I already know. Therefore, if the point of the interview is to publicize the author, then a short one with questions aimed at getting me to buy the book are best. But if the point is to get publicity for your blog by interviewing someone well known, then a longer one that gives me insight into the author's mind is better.

For me, it's all about the quality of the questions. If it's the usual boring questions (where do you get your ideas? groaaaannn) I'll skim no matter how short the interview is, but give me interesting questions and you'll keep me reading: I love the Scottish Book Trust's author confessions series for their weird and blunt questions, like "Have you ever said no to sex because you wanted to keep writing?". And author Tatum Flynn does fun middle grade interviews with questions like "What would your daemon be?".

Hi Southpaw - yes, lefties are always right!
I have a guest author spot on my website www.ritaleechapman.com. I provide them with some questions, tell them to choose the ones that interest them and to feel free to expand. Last week I had the author of biker books, Pamela Murdaugh-Smith and this week I have Victoria Zigler, a children's author, so the answers are usually very different.

It depends on how specific the questions are, and the topic. You could probably get a lot more answers from someone at NASA if you are writing about the moon, compared to if you were writing about cell phones and asked a verizon clerk.

If anyone would like to be a guest author on my website, you can contact me through www.ritaleechapman.com

It really depends on the questions and the nature and degree of my interest in both the author, their work, and the interview. I can't care less about questions like "When did you start writing" or "Do you have a message for your readers", so while my attention span prefers the interview to end at Potato, I would rather read something in-depth if it's interesting, than the usual "When did you learn you had to write?" stuff.
After that fateful Grey's Anatomy episode, I read a very long interview with Patrick Dempsey, with great interest, and I don't think a short one with the usual "How do you feel about this/What now/What about your fans" shorties would have been satisfactory given the circumstances.
When I'm deeply fascinated or emotionall involved with a work of fiction, I want detail.

It depends on how long and engaging the answers are. Overall, I'd say I prefer a middle ground--not just 3 or 4 questions, but 15 might be too much for me on most days.