I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point I went from disliking interviews ? preferring texts written by architects, much of it in the vein of theory ? to gravitating to them. Now I find myself opting to read interviews, be they online or in printed matter, over other content; interviews are only below critical reviews in my rankings. I chalk up the switch to a few things: preferring the informal and clear language of interviews over the theory-/archi-speak used my too many architects; a wide prevalence of interviews, especially online; and an appreciation for them after having done a few of them myself. From the reader's perspective it may seem that interviews are easy: turn on the mic, ask some questions, transcribe the interview (or have AI software do it, more likely), lightly edit, publish. But each step of the process has its concerns, from making sure to hit "record" (yes, that happens) and having the right mic in the right location in the right room (AI software doesn't like too much background noise, unintelligible voices, etc.), to asking good questions and followups and not-so-lightly editing long transcripts down to manageable size. Interviews can be artful when done right, but also throwaways when the subject isn't very revealing, for instance, or when the interviewer only asks previously prepared questions.  These three books spanning three decades this century run the gamut: from short to long, from artists and historians to famous ...