We never question people on their choices by asking, “Why would you choose this book?” or “Why didn’t you like this book?” The people’s answers are a reflection of their opinions, tastes and judgment. As with any interview, their words tell us something about them.

The intention for By the Book is to be a portrait of someone through his or her reading life. What people choose to read or not read and what books they find to be influential or meaningful say a lot about who they are.

Did you consider going back to Ms. Walker to ask about Mr. Icke’s book?

No. When we interview anyone, whether it’s a public official or a foreign leader or an artist, The Times isn’t saying that we approve of the person’s views and actions. We’re saying we think the subject is worthy of interviewing; that’s our approach with By the Book.

One thing that I think makes By the Book distinctive is that we are not guiding people to answer questions in a way that reflects our views as editors. We’ve also faced criticism when a writer only named white authors, or male authors. My response to that is the same as in this case: Does that answer tell you something about the subject? I think it does, and now readers know it because we’ve informed you.

Just as a reporter wouldn’t direct a senator to answer a question differently, we don’t direct interviewees’ answers in By the Book.

Is there ever an instance when you would disclose something sensitive about an interviewee’s background or provide more context?

Never. By the Book always runs with a note about the subject’s latest book if the person is an author or about his or her latest work or public endeavor if not, along with a quote from the interview. There’s no other introduction or afterword.