{"id":13392,"date":"2016-07-27T06:25:58","date_gmt":"2016-07-27T12:25:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lastbestnews.com\/site\/?p=13392"},"modified":"2016-07-28T07:11:41","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T13:11:41","slug":"more-artists-following-muse-down-independent-road","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/2016\/07\/more-artists-following-muse-down-independent-road\/","title":{"rendered":"More artists following muse down independent road"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Craig\"<\/a>

Casey Page<\/p>

Billings author Craig Lancaster’s latest novel is “Edward Unspooled.”<\/p><\/div>\n

When I pitched my new novel, \u201cEdward Unspooled,\u201d to the publishing house with which I\u2019ve been in business for five books, I was struck by a profound difference in our focus. I\u2019d followed passion and emotion\u2014that fire to get up every day and dive into the manuscript, maybe the only thing that makes the enterprise bearable. Here it is, I\u2019d said. I wrote my whole heart into this thing.<\/p>\n

My publisher talked about the numbers.<\/p>\n

The first book in this series, \u201c600 Hours of Edward,\u201d had been a High Plains Book Award winner and had sold many thousands of copies worldwide, certainly more than I ever imagined. The follow-up, \u201cEdward Adrift,\u201d had sold about half that. (But still: tens of thousands! More than I ever imagined! And I\u2019m an imaginative fellow!) No. 3, I was told, would halve that number again. They had the data. Not just on me, but on every literary series there\u2019s ever been. (Genre series, alas, have more durable audiences. People dig their action-adventure and suspense and crime and romance.) My editor, whom I adore, implored me: When you have another standalone novel, please talk to us. We love you. We love what you do.<\/p>\n

My reaction to all of this was split. I admired the discipline of the decision-makers to look at cold, hard figures, see the pattern and take a pass on something that has been, by any measure, a successful series. And it\u2019s great to be loved. But admiration of the publisher\u2019s math acumen went only so far.
\nIn the end, these two thoughts shoved to the front of my deliberation:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The rejection wasn\u2019t rooted in editorial matters. I have plenty of stuff in the archives that will never see the light of day, because it stinks. In this case, though, the craftsmanship\u2014what I consider most important\u2014didn\u2019t even figure into the decision.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> A lot of readers were being left on the table. Even at half of half of the audience for the first book.<\/p>\n

I intend to give those readers this story. They\u2019ve been very, very good to me.<\/p>\n

How I went about making that happen is not a particularly new or notable endeavor. I hired the designer who\u2019d built the cover for the first two books and commissioned work on No. 3. I hired an editor to work my story\u2014and me\u2014over. I formulated a marketing plan and brought in allies on that. I reached out to the independent booksellers who\u2019ve been crucial to the success of the series and made sure they have access to \u201cEdward Unspooled\u201d paperbacks at terms that sustain their businesses. They\u2019ve been very, very good to me, too.<\/p>\n

\"CapreAir_Variable\"<\/a><\/div><\/div>In short, I acted as project manager for my own book and tried to spread the benefit around to folks who are also pursuing their work in an independent way.<\/p>\n

And when I got beyond myself, I realized that this idea of going independent with art\u2014creating it and finding audiences for it and making those who stand between creation and reception justify themselves\u2014is happening all around us, here in Billings and in the wider world. I wanted to talk to some of those people, to find out what independence means to them.<\/p>\n

I needed to hear Patrick Wilson cut to the heart of it: \u201cI don\u2019t need to ask for permission to make the art I want to make.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018All Together Now\u2019<\/h5>\n

Wilson is the co-founder of Sacrifice Cliff Theatre Co., which takes the audacious position that a theater company doesn\u2019t need a home base to present challenging works. Indeed, Sacrifice Cliff plays have been performed in bank lobbies and backyards as well as on more traditional community stages. Wilson and his husband, Shad Allen Scott, have helped incubate new works by emerging playwrights and have latched on to heavyweight plays as well (\u201cWho\u2019s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?\u201d)<\/p>\n

\"Wilson\"<\/a>

Patrick Wilson<\/p><\/div>\n

Wilson says Sacrifice Cliff Theatre grew out of two things: a broad-based education he received while working with what was then Venture Theatre (now NOVA) and the ways in which that experience shaped his idea of what theatre could be.<\/p>\n

\u201cShad and I worked the box office, assisted in marketing, directing and producing, we were janitors, running crew, handymen, essentially anything that needed done I or the rest of the staff made sure it got done,\u201d he said. \u201cThere was no ego about what job belonged to who. Stuff needed to be done or it wouldn’t get done. It was that simple.<\/p>\n

\u201cI worked under an artistic director at Venture who had a very strong aesthetic. In many ways this helped the theatre achieve artistic success because all the shows had a similar look and feel. You knew they were Venture shows. However, as an emerging director it was often challenging to discover my own voice without it coming to odds with the established brand. Coming out from under that shadow has allowed me the opportunity to explore what makes me tick and what gets me excited about performance.\u201d<\/p>\n

This past spring, Sacrifice Cliff Theatre reached something of a high-water mark with its production of \u201cAll Together Now,\u201d a drama written by Krista Leigh Pasini that fused the traditional theater form with dance and drew capacity crowds to 2905, the Montana Avenue venue that hosted the production.<\/p>\n

While Wilson says he\u2019s \u201cnot crazy about putting a box on us as we\u2019re still growing,\u201d the experience with \u201cAll Together Now\u201d has clarified the way he intends to pursue art.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople here are hungry for the work we do,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI strive, and I know Shad does, too, to create an environment where we hope to empower the artists who collaborate with us to be just as much a part of the creation process, thereby creating an environment where everyone fully brings their best self to the work.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018We don\u2019t get to sit back and watch it happen\u2019<\/h5>\n
\"Anna\"<\/a>

Anna Paige<\/p><\/div>\n

If Billings has an artistic conscience, it\u2019s probably Anna Paige, proprietor of the Pen & Paige website, a passionate advocate for culture in the city, a gifted poet and writer, a champion of arts in the schools, and an organizer of cultural events, such as the Pulitzer Out Loud poetry series.<\/p>\n

She also walks her talk. A little more than a year ago, she left a career in corporate communications to pursue writing full-time.<\/p>\n

She sees great promise in the artistic scene in Billings.<\/p>\n

\u201cBillings is a scrappy town filled with people who understand that they are the creators of culture,\u201d she said. \u201cWe don\u2019t get to sit back and watch it happen. We\u2019ve have to fight for every audience member, every set of eyes on the art we\u2019re creating. Nothing is a given in Billings, which makes the arts and cultural scene so much more authentic.\u201d<\/p>\n

These days, Paige tries to maintain a self-pleasing, self-sustaining mix of endeavors as she pursues her writing. She takes work on commission. She tends bar. And she keeps her focus on what\u2019s important to her.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo leave a stable, well-paying job to write full time, I had to let go of the power money had over me,\u201d she said. \u201cMoney is as powerful as we make it. I recognized the power I was giving money, and when I decided it was no longer going to be my main motivation, I started to seek out work because I wanted it, not because I needed it.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s also why I bartend\u2014it\u2019s completely different work and puts money in my pocket. At the brewery, I know exactly what\u2019s expected of me. Writing is anything but predictable. That kind of work affords me the ability to write pieces that I may not be paid for right away, affords me the ability to write because I want to, not because I have to. However money comes to me, I try to ensure that I\u2019m in a place of choice, not in a place of need or want.\u201d<\/p>\n

OK, let\u2019s talk about money<\/h5>\n

No, really, let\u2019s. Because it\u2019s the one thing we all need to survive, and the one thing most artists are loath to discuss because it diverts attention from the work and the reasons most of us pursued it in the first place.<\/p>\n

Books don\u2019t get published without money. Shows don\u2019t get off the boards without money. A band doesn\u2019t lay down tracks without money. Independent bookstores, like This House of Books, coming to Billings this fall, don\u2019t open their doors without capital.<\/p>\n

When my first book was published seven years ago, I thought I knew a lot about how publishing works. Each year has shown me how ignorant I was, but it\u2019s also crystallized some lessons that I\u2019m carrying forward with this independent release of \u201cEdward Unspooled.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here are a couple of them:<\/p>\n

Nobody but me is looking out for me<\/strong>: My first book, \u201c600 Hours of Edward,\u201d was originally published in 2009 by a small Montana publisher. I signed a standard industry contract and was happy to do so. Three years later, that publisher (at my behest, to be fair) transferred the publication rights to a bigger publisher that has, in four years, made the book into an international bestseller. Which is truly wonderful.<\/p>\n

\"Lancaster-EdwardUnspooled-CV-FT-final_Lrg\"<\/a>However \u2026<\/p>\n

The current publisher pays the original publisher royalties, which the original publisher then divides with me. When this publisher proposed the split, it was 65 percent for the publisher and 35 percent for me. I countered at 50-50. We settled at 60-40.<\/p>\n

Think about this. The original publisher has no responsibilities for printing, distribution or marketing\u2014no outlay, no risk, just pure profit\u2014and yet takes 60 cents of every dollar the book brings in. I have seven books in print, and the biggest seller\u2014by far\u2014makes the least amount of money for me. Now, I\u2019ll grant you that it\u2019s my own fault. Seven years ago, I was so eager to be published that I didn\u2019t consider scenarios like this. I\u2019ll further grant you that it can\u2019t just be about the money; that, in the end, I am grateful for the experience I\u2019ve had with this book, because it has truly changed my life. On the other hand, when my electric bill comes due, NorthWestern Energy likes to be paid in dollars and cents. So, whether I want it to be or not, it\u2019s kind of about the money.<\/p>\n

When the original publisher suggested the 65-35 split, he justified it by saying, \u201cWe need the money.\u201d As you can imagine, I didn\u2019t find that a particularly persuasive argument that he should make nearly twice as much as I did while bearing none of the risk.<\/p>\n

He was looking out for him. I have to look out for me. The ethic I have to bring to it is this: How can I do what\u2019s right for me while supporting the culture I want to live in? That\u2019s why I pay designers and editors. That\u2019s why I strike deals with independent bookstores. I want those folks around.<\/p>\n

This is my life\u2019s work<\/strong>: A standard publishing contract works like this: The author retains the copyright. The publisher retains the right to publish the work for the life of that copyright. (Yes, there are factors that can cause books to go out of print and the publishing rights to revert, but in general, you sign with a publisher and that\u2019s that. The book, for all intents and purposes, is out of your hands.)<\/p>\n

Copyright is the author\u2019s life plus 70 years. Three generations or more. That\u2019s a long time.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m never again signing a life-of-copyright contract. Why would I? Twenty years ago, only a visionary could have seen technologies like electronic books and print-on-demand that put the mechanics of publishing within reach of anybody with a desktop computer.<\/p>\n

(We can argue about the merits of democratic publishing later; the upshot, thus far, has been many, many, many more books than ever before, and proportionally more crap. Some authors bemoan this \u201ctsunami of crap<\/a>\u201d and contend that it crowds them out of the marketplace. I think they\u2019re a little hysterical. But, like I said, that\u2019s a whole \u2019nother can of worms.)<\/p>\n

Who knows what\u2019s coming next year, or three years from now, or five years from now? I\u2019d rather sign contracts for a specified period, then have the opportunity to renegotiate terms that better fit the terrain or move on. This, I predict, will be the next big battleground between publishers and writers. Control of copyright didn\u2019t mean much when finding a publisher was the only way a book saw the light of day. It means everything now.<\/p>\n

Macro and micro<\/h5>\n

When my publisher passed on \u201cEdward Unspooled,\u201d despite a sales outlook that would have made pretty decent money for the publisher and me, it did so because big book and music publishers and movie studios like the home run. Blockbusters bring in the big money that keeps the publisher flush and fortifies the smaller gains (or losses) by the many, many, many books and albums and movies that aren\u2019t blockbusters. It probably makes some sense from a business perspective (that\u2019s not my specialty), but I don\u2019t know that it makes particular sense for the people who create the work. Anyone who\u2019s ever created, for pleasure or for a living, knows that the true joy and, usually, the best results lie in following one\u2019s own inspiration.<\/p>\n

As it turns out, this macro view of the world\u2014whether in publishing or music or movies or anything else\u2014leaves a lot of room for an independent creator.<\/p>\n

Consider the newspaper industry and this site and their connected, yet divergent, relationship.<\/p>\n

As newspaper companies deal with dwindling profits from print without an equivalent rise in online advertising, their publications pull back from their core missions. Staffs are cut to the bone. Regional stories of interest go unreported. There\u2019s less time and fewer resources for niches, for slices of life, for the undiscovered, for the whimsical. (An old editor of mine once OK\u2019d a front-page poem. The next day he said, \u201cWell, I\u2019m not sure we\u2019ll do that again. But it didn\u2019t hurt anything.\u201d No newspaper today would be willing to risk even that.)<\/p>\n

Enter Ed Kemmick and David Crisp, two veterans of the Billings Gazette who are now at the helm of Last Best News and who are happy to pick up those stories and break new ground, too.<\/p>\n

\u201cI started thinking about the possibility of an independent online newspaper in the late winter or early spring of 2013, nine months before actually launching,\u201d Kemmick said. \u201cI can’t remember now exactly what sent me down this trail, but I started reading about \u2018hyperlocal news sites\u2019 all over the country and it dawned on me that I could probably make it work in Billings.\u201d<\/p>\n

By any measure, he has succeeded, although there are certainly challenges. In the final analysis, what Kemmick and Crisp do isn\u2019t altogether different from what drives Patrick Wilson or Anna Paige or local musician Parker Brown (who funded creation of a forthcoming album through crowdsourcing). Or me.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe biggest challenge is staying afloat,\u201d Kemmick said. \u201cNow that there are two of us, the challenges are magnified. We have to sell a lot more ads. But the opportunities are endless, especially now that there are two of us. We want to be able to free each other up for longer, investigative pieces and for traveling around Eastern Montana to find and write great stories. Other possibilities include multimedia projects. Neither of us has any background in film or audio, but we’ve got some smart, talented people who’d like to help us get there. And then there are all the great things we haven’t thought of yet that we will be free to do\u2014stuff that wouldn’t fit in a traditional newspaper format. Because we’re more of a newspaper\/magazine, we’ve got the freedom to be a little quirkier, a little edgier, a little more personal. Sky’s the limit.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a similar story playing out down the road in Livingston, where the Montana Quarterly, an award-winning magazine, is flourishing under independent ownership by Scott McMillion, who\u2019s been with the publication since it was created in 2005 by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Forced a few years back by its parent company to cut costs, the Chronicle ditched the magazine. McMillion bought it off the scrap heap and reinvigorated it. (Full disclosure: I\u2019m the Quarterly\u2019s design director.)<\/p>\n

\u201cAs far as I can tell, Pioneer News Group (the Chronicle\u2019s corporate parent) sees all of its products as a venue for selling advertising,\u201d McMillion said. \u201cI saw it as a venue for storytelling, an outlet for writers and photographers as well as for the people they write about.\u201d<\/p>\n

Corporations aren\u2019t inherently good or bad, current political bickering notwithstanding. But they have common, institutionalized behavior: they serve to enrich their shareholders. McMillion, like any business owner, needs the money to keep flowing. He just flows it toward the magazine and its central mission.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor Pioneer, the Quarterly was something of a red-headed stepchild, a magazine in a family of newspapers, and nobody took it to raise,\u201d he said. \u201cThere were problems with circulation, subscription renewal and budgeting.<\/p>\n

\u201cI haven\u2019t solved everything, but I\u2019ve improved a lot. The subscriber list is up by 70 percent, new software helps get magazines where they need to go, and I\u2019ve learned that when you\u2019re working with your own money instead of \u2018the company\u2019s,\u2019 you tend to watch it pretty closely.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ethics of going indie<\/h5>\n

Kemmick and Crisp draw on their hard-won credibility to create an online news source. McMillion, with a long history in journalism, can establish a publishing company and assemble an editorial team and be legit. Musicians have done this for a long time, setting up studios in the garage and recording their own albums, all with great fanfare and indie cred.<\/p>\n

Publishing a book is different, in its perceptions and its prospects. I can\u2019t zero in on a single reason for this; I suspect there are many. There\u2019s the idea that if a publisher doesn\u2019t want a book, the work is no good\u2014an idea that is often correct. There\u2019s a romantic nobility in the slog, in writing and revising and sharpening, in getting slapped down by eighty agents before one finally takes you on, in getting shopped to publisher after publisher and hearing \u201cno\u201d dozens of times before you hear \u201cyes,\u201d in waiting those long months or years between acquisition and publication. There\u2019s a breed of author who reveres the eccentricities and practices of publishing and publishing houses, and views acceptance by them as the gold standard. I get it. I don\u2019t share that view, but I get it.<\/p>\n

But let me posit this: What if, instead, the gold standard were actually writing the good book and publishing was merely the means by which it was made available?<\/p>\n

Because I suspect that\u2019s how many of us who\u2019ve been through the wringer view it on the other side. We aren\u2019t looking, as Wilson noted, for someone to give us permission. We\u2019re looking for partners in our work and an audience for it, and some of us are willing to form our own alliances with other independent-minded people to get there. If you\u2019re an aspiring author, or even a thriving one, I urge you to read this post<\/a> by bestselling novelist Dana Stabenow and especially this quote about her decision to part with her publisher: \u201cI wanted to write an historical novel about Marco Polo\u2019s granddaughter traveling the Silk Road west between the years 1322 and 1327. Again, zero interest. \u2018We don\u2019t want to have to re-invent the Stabenow brand.\u2019 A direct quote.\u201d<\/p>\n

It makes you wonder: Whose career is it, anyway?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s about the work. It\u2019s also about the experience.<\/h5>\n

A musician friend who signed with a big label back in the \u201990s and was dropped when his album didn\u2019t perform to expectations responded to the setback by forming his own record company and releasing his own material. I remember well what he told me: \u201cI\u2019ll have a longer, more satisfying career doing it this way.\u201d He knew he was probably saying goodbye to the possibility of platinum records and Grammy appearances. He decided that what he gained was worth more.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where I am. I\u2019ve worked myself into a comfortable spot, where I can take each project as it comes and decide what I\u2019m going to do with it. I can revisit my publisher\u2014there are certainly huge advantages to that relationship\u2014or seek another one. I can congregate a team and do it the way I\u2019ve done with \u201cEdward Unspooled.\u201d The most important thing is that choosing what to write and what to do with it rests with one person: me.<\/p>\n

Or, as Anna Paige put it: \u201cArtistic independence for me is being able to create without the result being co-opted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amen.<\/p>\n

Q&A with Jon Clinch<\/h5>\n

Self-publishing in the fiction world has moved beyond the days of early adopters and literary misfits who couldn\u2019t catch on with established presses. Now, many genre writers are self-publishing exclusively, and even some folks who came up through what\u2019s now known as the \u201clegacy\u201d system have dipped a toe into the water by publishing out-of-print novels from their backlist.<\/p>\n

\"Clinch\"<\/a>

Jon Clinch<\/p><\/div>\n

What self-publishing has lacked, thus far, is a steady influx of writers of serious literature. This makes Jon Clinch, the acclaimed author of “Finn<\/a>” and “Kings of the Earth<\/a>,” such an interesting study. Those two books were celebrated by the Washington Post as top-10 novels the years of their release. In 2012, Clinch surprised the literary establishment by deciding to self-publish his novel “The Thief of Auschwitz.<\/a>” He was kind enough to field a few questions from Craig Lancaster about what he\u2019s learned and where this movement might be headed:<\/p>\n

Q<\/strong>: Your decision to independently release \u201cThe Thief of Auschwitz\u201d caused some ripples in the literary world. What were your takeaways from the experience?<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>: There were ripples, all right, but the tsunami never came. The Washington Post, which had called both of my first two novels their years\u2019 best, covered my decision to self-pub as a big literary deal, perhaps the dawn of some new day in publishing, but when the book arrived they didn\u2019t review it. Almost no one did. Newspapers and magazines simply don\u2019t cover books that aren\u2019t from the big houses. I knew that going in\u2014a paper like the Post gets about 150 new books every day from the big houses alone, all angling for review coverage\u2014but I\u2019d hoped that I could be the writer to break down that taboo. In the end, I wasn\u2019t. And because my readers find my books in stores and through reviews instead of by clicking around on Amazon, most of them never even heard about \u201cThe Thief of Auschwitz.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lesson of that book (and the book that preceded it, a sci-fi novel called What Came After that I\u2019d published the year prior under a pen name, and which sold like hotcakes), is that genre fiction has the edge over literary fiction in the world of self-publishing. Let that be a lesson.<\/p>\n

Q<\/strong>: The do-it-yourself ethos that’s become so well-established, and praiseworthy, in music and film has been slower to develop in literary circles. Why is that?<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>: Thanks to differences among the three businesses, independent creators in music and film got an earlier start than independent creators in literature. I believe that\u2019s because film and music became \u201ctentpole\u201d businesses\u2014thriving on a few big releases per season, and to heck with the rest\u2014earlier. Authors didn\u2019t have that to worry about when publishers routinely used profits from their big books to fund smaller, more idiosyncratic stuff. Since the big houses are now global entities more responsive to Wall Street than ever, those days are gone.<\/p>\n

One more thing: there are lots more writers in the world than there are bands and filmmakers. Now that the machinery is turned on, the signal-to-noise ratio is well-nigh impossible to overcome.<\/p>\n

Q<\/strong>: Those of us fortunate enough to follow you on social media get your insights into what’s happening with art and those who make it. What are the challenges\/opportunities for independent artists right now?<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>: A few years ago, when ebooks first came on the scene, there was a huge burst of interest in self-publishing. It was possible for some of the earliest arrivals to make quite a killing when the medium was new. But the landscape soon grew crowded, and the pricing model went from cheap to dirt-cheap, and a giveaway mentality fostered to sell hardware soon filled up people\u2019s e-readers with an endless supply of free, largely unread, and certainly disposable books.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m well acquainted with two of the big winners from those early days. One of them is still out there with blog post after snarky blog post, promotion after desperate promotion, hoping to game the system into producing sales again. The other was courted by the biggest of big publishing houses into a multimillion-dollar deal that ended badly when sales of the new book didn\u2019t take off all by themselves. These days, that poor soul\u2019s editor won\u2019t even return his e-mails.<\/p>\n

Finding an audience and gaining a profitable toehold is increasingly difficult no matter what you write. There\u2019s just too much noise, too much product, and too little opportunity to stand out.<\/p>\n

Right now, it seems to be that the future of serious literature may be in the hands of a few smart and sophisticated small presses. I don\u2019t know. We\u2019ll have to wait and see.<\/p>\n

Craig Lancaster is a Billings novelist. His new novel, \u201cEdward Unspooled,\u201d was released on July 23. His 2015 novel \u201cThis Is What I Want\u201d is a finalist in the fiction category of the High Plains Book Awards.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When I pitched my new novel, \u201cEdward Unspooled,\u201d to the publishing house with which I\u2019ve been in business for five books, I was struck by a profound difference in our focus. I\u2019d followed passion and emotion\u2014that fire to get up every day and dive into the manuscript, maybe the only thing that makes the enterprise […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":13393,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[996,93,114,135,4743,2188],"class_list":["post-13392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-culture","tag-anna-paige","tag-craig-lancaster","tag-david-crisp","tag-ed-kemmick","tag-jon-clinch","tag-patrick-wilson","prominence-top-story"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13392\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montana-mint.com\/lastbestnews\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}