More appropriate to call it a questionnaire than an interview.
Alas, what a lazy approach. An opportunity wasted.
I don't think that's fair. It's one of several standard types of interview, and legit in its own right, as long as one doesn't confuse it with the others. It's not like Ursula Le Guin hasn't done plenty of face-to-face interviews too.
> It's one of several standard types of interview
Except it's not actually an interview. Call it a Q&A or something if you like, but "interview" implies back-and-forth conversation.
That's fair enough re my usage of the word, but the article never calls itself an interview, and the point that this is a well-known standard format holds. Let's not dismiss things for shallow reasons.