Sessions Summary - Australian Publishers Association

REPORT 

REPORT 

RESIDENTIAL EDITORIAL PROGRAM 2012 

THE CLASS OF 2012 … 

Residential Editorial Program 2012 0

REPORT 

RESIDENTIAL EDITORIAL PROGRAM 2012 

REPORT 

CONTENTS: 

1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW ....................................................................... 2 

2. VALUE AND BENEFITS ...................................................................... 6 

3. SUCCESSES/SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT ...................... 9 

4. COURSE OUTCOMES (1999-2012) ................................................... 25 

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 26 

6. FINANCIAL REPORT ........................................................................... 27 

ATTACHMENTS: 

A. PROGRAM PLANNING TIMELINE ..................................................... 28 

B. MENTORS’ ROLES .............................................................................. 30 

C. PROGRAM MANAGER’S ROLE ......................................................... 30 

D. LIST OF REP ALUMNI ......................................................................... 31 

E. PHOTOS ............................................................................................... 34 


REPORT 

1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

‘I have had the good fortune to work with several wonderful Australian editors and look forward to 

paying back in a very small way the great debt I owe them by speaking with Australia’s next 

generation of editors. As ever though, I fully expect I will learn far more from them than they will from 

me.’ Richard Flanagan, Keynote Speaker, REP 2012 

The seventh biennial Residential Editorial Program (REP) took place from 7–12 May 2012, and 

was funded by the Literature Board of the Australia Council, and again administered by the 

Australian Publishers Association. 

It was also supported by the publishing houses (whose employees were accepted into the program 

by application), in offering financial support towards the costs of the program, and in offering them 

leave to attend – Allen & Unwin, Black Inc Books, Text Publishing, HarperCollins Publishers 

Australia, Pan Macmillan Australia, Penguin Group Australia and Affirm Press. Support from our 

funding bodies also enables the program to support two freelancers to attend, which is an essential 

aspect of the program. The REP was held at Varuna, the Writers’ House in Katoomba, NSW, where 

six of the seven programs have taken place. 

The REP has traditionally been opened by a keynote speaker who confirms the importance of 

editing. Acclaimed writer, Richard Flanagan, as this report confirms, delivered an inspiring address 

which more than validated the importance of the program. 

Since 1999, participants have passed on their knowledge and praised the REP to their colleagues so 

that later participants come with high expectations, which have not to date been disappointed. The 

REP 2012 was judged a success by participants and mentors, and refinements made to the program 

in response to past reports had obviously enhanced it even further, judging from the reportage this 

year. This universally positive evaluation continues to highlight the need for editors to receive 

further in-service professional development. 

1.1 Program Purpose 

During the program, mid-career level editors are offered intensive workshop experiences with highly 

skilled and respected industry practitioners. The intensive workshops which form the core part of the 

program aim to develop their literary editing skills. Guest speakers supplement these sessions with 

specific topics of relevance to those working in the industry and hoping to advance their skills in a 

range of related areas. The course aimed to: 

identify and develop the professional skills and knowledge required by good literary 

editors and thereby enhance the standard of writing published in Australia 

encourage editors to develop good working relationships with authors and foster the 

author’s writing talents 

enable interaction between editors of a similar level and thereby encourage them to raise 

the awareness and profile of editors in the literary and publishing community 

teach editors to recognise and then how to balance the commitment to their authors with 

their publisher’s business expectations 

The REP is designed to complement the Beatrice Davis Editorial Fellowship in recognising literary 

editors’ further need not only for overseas experiences but also for mentorships in providing an 

advanced training opportunity. The fact that the REP has since 2002 included an address by the 

current Beatrice Davis Fellowship recipient cements that close relationship between the two APA 

programs – both generously funded by the Literature Board. 


REPORT 

1.2 Program Planning 

Planning for the REP 2012 began with the agreement in December 2010 by the Literature Board of 

the Australia Council for the Arts to fund the program again, and with the agreement by the APA to 

administer it; then by the appointment of Robyn Sheahan-Bright as Program Manager; followed by 

the establishment of an Organising Committee. As usual, it was important that the event was 

organised by a group representing a cross-section of the industry. Members of the 2012 

Organising Committee were: Meredith Rose, Penguin Group Australia (Chair); Meredith 

Curnow, Random House Australia, Madonna Duffy, University of Queensland Press, Nicola 

O’Shea, Freelance, Tegan Morrison, HarperCollins Publishers Australia, Robyn Sheahan-Bright, 

freelance REP 2012 Program Manager, Dee Read, Australian Publishers Association, Nicola 

Evans, Literature Board of the Australia Council. [See Attachment A. Planning Timeline.] 

The Committee convened two meetings, the first of which was held on Monday 1 August October 

2011. In consultation with Varuna, the scheduling of the event was confirmed for the 7–12 May 

2012. It was decided that three mentors would conduct the core sessions of the program, as they 

had done in the past, and that they would be invited to participate in planning in order to ensure that 

they would share ownership of the program. [See Planning Timeline below.] The mentors selected 

were three of Australia's most distinguished editors, each of whom had been involved with the 

program before: Jo Jarrah (Mentor REP 2010, 2008, 2006, Guest Editor REP 2004, Committee 

Member REP 1999) Jacqueline Kent (Mentor REP 1999, Keynote Speaker REP 2002, Mentor REP 

2004, 2006 and 2012 mentor) and Roberta Ivers (Participant, REP 1999). The REP has traditionally 

engaged former participants as speakers, and in 2012 welcomed a former participant as a mentor 

for the first time. 

Guidelines were developed and advertised by 26 September 2011, with the deadline for applications 

on Monday 9 January 2012. Publicity for applicants to attend the program was, as usual, greatly 

enhanced by the advocacy of previous participants who have been very efficient in ‘spreading the 

word’ about the program. It was also publicised by dissemination of information to publishing 

houses, via print and electronic media, and via industry journals such as Thorpe’s WBN, the ASA 

Newsletter and the newsletters of the state-based Societies of Editors and Writers’ Centres. 

The mentors first met by teleconference on 26 October 2011 to discuss the program with Meredith 

Rose (Chair) and Robyn Sheahan-Bright (Program Manager). They met again in a second 

teleconference on 7 December 2011, and a third teleconference on 18 January 2012. to consider 

the manuscript to be workshopped. It was decided that The Meaning of Grace by Deborah Forster, 

offered to the program by Random House Australia, should be workshopped. Foster’s editor 

Brandon VanOver agreed to attend the program on its last day, to speak about the editing process 

he undertook with the author. For the second time in the program’s history, the identity of author, 

publisher and editor remained secret until the program’s completion. 

The Committee met on Tuesday 31 January 2012, to select the twelve successful applicants 

whose publishing houses had agreed to contribute towards the costs of the program, or if freelance, 

could access a limited number of scholarships. They were: Rebecca Starford (Affirm Press), 

Chren Byng (HarperCollins Publishers Australia), Susannah Chambers (Allen & Unwin), 

Sarah Hazelton (Freelance), Emma Rafferty (Pan Macmillan Australia), Caro Cooper (Text 

Publishing), Vanessa Pellatt (Allen & Unwin), Arwen Summers (Penguin Group Australia), 

Nikola Lusk (Black Inc), Kylie Mason (Freelance), Catherine Milne (Allen & Unwin), and 

Bridget Maidment (Penguin Group Australia). The Committee was pleased to find included 

amongst these editors those who worked for smaller independent presses as well as those 

employed by multinational companies; two freelance editors were also successful in their 

applications. They regretted the lack of applications received from the states of Queensland and 

Tasmania, and from the ACT and NT, in this year’s applications, and that no Indigenous 

scholarships were offered this year. [See 5. Executive Summary & Recommendations 3] The 

Committee, at this second and final meeting, also decided on the final program details, and the 

successful applicants were notified that week. 


REPORT 

1.2 Program Planning (Cont.) 

Thirteen guest speakers were invited to address diverse topics ranging from the author’s experience of 

being edited, to the future of editing, in addresses and workshops, supplementing the mentoring 

sessions. Keynote Speaker: Richard Flanagan. Speakers: Louise Thurtell, Laura Harris, Melina 

Marchetta, Ali Lavau, Sue Abbey, Linda McBride-Yuke, Ellen van Neerven-Currie, Steven Carroll, Jo 

Butler, Jane Morrow, Joel Naoum and Brandon VanOver [See Program]. On Monday evening 7 May 

2012, Meredith Rose, Lis Bastian and Robyn Sheahan-Bright welcomed the participants and opened 

the program. 

The Literature Board and the Australian Publishers Association supported the venture: 

The Literature Board of the Australia Council is firmly committed to supporting the Residential 

Editorial Program as it delivers extraordinary benefits to Australian editors on their career path. 

These editors are our emerging cultural leaders and the knowledge they gain while at REP stands 

them in good stead to manage a dynamic author-editor relationship which will ultimately result in the 

publication of excellent writing. 

Susan Hayes, Director, Literature Board Australia Council for the Arts 

Since 1999 the Residential Editorial Program (REP) has operated through a joint initiative of the 

Australian Publishers Association (APA) and the Australia Council and we are again offering this 

exciting experience in 2012. Through the APA’s professional development program, the REP 

provides talented editors with a unique opportunity to enhance their skills through an innovative and 

rigorous residential program. With the assistance of key publishing sponsors, we continue to 

emphasize the importance of editing as a key factor in the success of a book and the publishing 

industry. Welcome to the REP and we trust that you will find it both inspirational and challenging. 

Maree McCaskill Chief Executive, Australian Publishers Association 

In 2012, participants, mentors and speakers praised the program: 

 

 

 

“I think the REP gets better every time, and the quality of the participants gives one hope for the 

future of Australian publishing.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“Excellent. A truly one-of-a-kind experience.” Sarah Hazelton, participant 

“I didn’t really know what to expect of it, but it was brilliant and truly inspirational. I feel very lucky 

to have participated, and will take with me for the rest of my career the lessons learnt from both 

the mentors and the very talented editors who made up the REP.” Rebecca Starford, 

participant 


Monday 

7/5/12 

Tuesday 

8/5/12 

RESIDENTIAL EDITORIAL PROGRAM 7–12 May 2012 

Wednesday 

9/5/12 

Thursday 

10/5/12 

Friday 

11/5/12 

Saturday 

12/5/12 

Before 9.00 Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast 

9.00–11.00am 

SESSION 1 

Mentoring Workshop 

Mentors: Roberta Ivers, Jo 

Jarrah and Jacqueline Kent 


(Cont.) 


(Cont.) 


(Cont.) 

10.00am Write of 

Response 

Speaker: Guest Editor 

11.00–11.30 am Morning Tea Morning Tea Morning Tea Morning Tea Morning Tea 

11.30–1.00pm 

SESSION 2 

Structural Editing Workshop 

Speaker: Louise Thurtell 


(Cont.) 


(Cont.) 


(Cont.) 

1.00–2.00pm Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 

2.00–2.30 pm Free Time or one-on-one 

sessions with Mentors 

2.30–4.00pm 

SESSION 3 

Arrival at Palais Royale 


(Cont.) 

Free Time or one-on- one 


How Does it Feel 

Speaker: Ali Lavau 

Free Time or one-on-one 


Double Act: Editor and Writer 

Speakers: Jo Butler and 

Steven Carroll 

4.00–4.30pm Afternoon Tea Afternoon Tea Afternoon Tea Afternoon Tea 

4.30–5.30pm 

SESSION 4 

Welcome at Varuna 

Problem Solving Session: 

Group Discussions 


Group 1 Presentation 



Free Time or one-on-one 


The Big Picture: Summing Up: 

Presentation by Three 

Mentoring Groups 

Problem Solving Session 


11.30am–12.00pm 

Further Questions for 

the Editor 

12.00-12.30pm 

Individual Groups 

Debrief 

12.30–1.00pm 

The Last Word 

Departure 

5.30–7.00pm 

SESSION 5 

Pre-Dinner Drinks at 

Varuna 

Double Act: Editor and Writer 

for Young People 

Speakers: Laura Harris and 

Melina Marchetta 

Black & Write! Indigenous 

Writing and Editing Project 

Speakers: Sue Abbey, 

Ellen van Neerven-Currie 

and Linda McBride-Yuke 

What Would Beatrice Do An 

Australian View of 

Developments in Publishing in 

the US 

Speaker: Jane Morrow 

The Future of Editing and Editors 

Speaker: Joel Naoum 

7.00–8.00pm Dinner (Varuna) Dinner (Varuna) Dinner (Varuna) Dinner (Varuna) 

8.00–8.45pm 

Walking the Thin Red Line 

Keynote Speaker: Richard 

Flanagan 

Literary Quiz Night Free Time Free Time for informal 

discussion between 

participant editors 

Dinner (Canton Palace 

Restaurant) 

ARRIVE: MONDAY 7 May 2012 DEPART: SATURDAY 12 May 2012 VENUE: VARUNA – THE WRITERS’ HOUSE 141 CASCADE STREET KATOOMBA NSW 2780 

This project is administered by the Australian Publishers Association and supported by the Literature Board of the Australia Council for the Arts and the Australian publishing industry

2. VALUE AND BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM 

REPORT 

“Editing – to a massive extent – is an invisible gloss on a book. I’m frequently enraged when book critics 

claim that a given book wasn’t very well edited. The kinds of things that can be changed (but are left as 

is) and the kinds of mistakes that creep in (and are not fixed) are often not the fault of editors, but of the 

author, the typesetter, the printer, the conversion house and so on and so on and so on. The editor might 

take ultimate responsibility, but it is almost impossible to determine how ‘well’ a book was edited by 

looking at the final product.” Joel Naoum, Speaker, REP 2012 

The evaluations and comments made by participants and mentors confirmed that the Residential 

Editorial Program had been of real value and benefit to them. Evaluation was done via three 

mechanisms: 

a) Evaluation Forms were completed by the three mentors, reflecting on the outcomes they’d hoped 

to achieve. 

b) Evaluation Forms were completed by the twelve participants. 

c) The Program Manager also compiled the evaluations in this report and further assessed the course. 

[See 5. Executive Summary & Recommendations] 

Three specific areas of ‘value and benefits’ to the editing community were addressed by the project: 

skills or expertise; employment opportunities; professional networks. These were all encompassed 

by the four Aims of the course, and the participants clearly considered that they had benefitted in all 

these areas as follows: 

Aim: 

• identify and develop the professional skills and knowledge required by good literary editors 

and thereby enhance the standard of writing published in Australia 

Outcome: The selection process identified twelve articulate, committed and talented editors. Mentors 

commented on both their skills and their passion for the craft of editing and that they have the potential 

to contribute greatly to the industry in future. 

When asked to comment on what aspects of the course had most benefited them, participants 

responded with a range of comments indicating that they had gained enormous benefits: 

 

 

 

 

 

“The ability to develop skills in working on a highly literary manuscript, the likes of which I hadn’t truly 

engaged with so far in my career. I now feel far more confident in my ability to work with authors in a 

broader range of genres and with different approaches.” Sarah Hazelton 

“The intensive editing workshops were probably most beneficial, because it was so interesting to 

discuss every aspect of the manuscript in such detail with four other editors. And the incidental 

conversations with my fellow editors and the mentors during the week were extremely beneficial for 

me to learn more about the publishing industry in general and what it’s like to work for larger houses.” 

Nikola Lusk 

“Meeting other editors and finding out how similar/different our approaches are, our workflows are, 

our companies are – and talking more broadly about the industry.” Arwen Summers 

“I found the Intensive Editing Workshops most useful in discovering blindspots in my editing habits 

and developing ways to overcome them.” Kylie Mason 

“The REP has given me confidence in my instincts as an editor. And it’s great to feel connected to 

such a wonderful group of editors. In my application I said that I’d love to learn more about how other 


REPORT 

companies work and how editors and editing are valued at other houses, and I certainly felt that I 

came away from the REP with a better understanding of this.” Chren Byng 

“The time spent in our groups, working through the manuscript with our mentors. The presentations 

on digital changes. And the opportunity to meet editors from other publishing houses and 

freelancers.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“Talking to other editors about how they work in-house – as I come from a small press, and only have 

three years working experience within this organisation, it was all very instructive and useful to me.” 

Rebecca Starford 

“Ack, there’s so much. On top of the excellent sessions, the mentoring experience was very special – 

it was a pleasure to have had the opportunity to soak up some of Bert’s wisdom. I have no doubt my 

craft is better for those experiences. Most of all, it was such a tremendous privilege to have shared 

the week with such cleverpants, talented, amusing, inspiring women – mentors and fellow attendees 

alike (special ‘shout-out’ to Robyn SB). It was unspeakably valuable to get to compare experiences, 

and just to get to know these wonderful people. It made me proud to call myself an editor. Thanks so 

much.” Bridget Maidment 

 

 

 

 

 

“The time and space to reflect on the art and craft of editing… The opportunity to meet and make 

friends with other editors from all over Australia. It was a week full of very interesting – and 

cathartic! – discussions... Listening to the mentors – who each brought different perspectives and a 

wealth of experience… The sense I now have of the wider industry; the importance of editing within 

the industry, and the sense of belonging to an important tradition of Australian editors, writers and 

publishers.” Susannah Chambers 

“I have been doing more writing than editing recently, so welcomed the opportunity to talk to 

participants and the other mentors and to brush up my knowledge of the current book publishing 

industry and how the new technology is likely to affect it. One of the great things about being a 

mentor at the REP is how much you end up learning yourself. ” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“The intensive editing sessions, the chance to take time out and reflect on my editorial practice, 

hearing about the way other editors do things and how they solve problems.” Emma Rafferty 

“Working on the manuscript in such an intensive way and also getting to meet fellow editors and 

discussing our careers.” Caro Cooper 

“The structural editing sessions were incredibly important – not only did they give me a real 

understanding of the complexity and detail of a good structural edit, but the sessions we had inspired 

me.” Catherine Milne 

When asked if the program met their expectations, each participant agreed that it had: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It exceeded them. And I had high expectations going in.” Sarah Hazelton 

“The REP more than met my expectations. I absolutely loved everything about it. Robyn Sheahan- 

Bright created a brilliant program and I’m so, so grateful to have been a part of it.” Chren Byng 

“It exceeded them.” Nikola Lusk 

“The program exceeded my expectations.” Kylie Mason 

“Yes – and far exceeded them.” Rebecca Starford. 

“It definitely exceeded my expectations. I was very happy with what I learnt and the experiences I had 

at Varuna. It was all so well organized and I have taken a lot of new knowledge back to my job.” Caro 

Cooper 

“It was just brilliant; inspiring and fun. It was an all round great week.” Roberta Ivers 

Their knowledge was also developed in a number of specific areas: Substantive Editing and 

Restructuring a Manuscript; Indigenous Editing Issues; The US Publishing Scene; Writer/Author 

relationships; Editorial Problem-Solving; The Future of Editing. 


REPORT 

Aim: 

• encourage editors to develop good working relationships with authors and foster the 


Outcome: The editors learned in the intensive workshops that the author’s work is her or his own. Whilst 

they discussed strategies for improving a work, the mentors were at pains to impress on them the need 

to ascertain what the author was aiming to achieve and to assist them in following that inspiration. This 

complex literary novel was a perfect vehicle for understanding the difference between enhancing or 

altering the text; between what Richard Flanagan described as gardening to maintain a wilderness 

aspect, whilst not reducing the work to topiary. 

Aim: 

• enable interaction between editors of a similar level and thereby encourage them to raise the 

awareness and profile of editors in the literary and publishing community 

Outcome: Nearly every participant editor commented on how valuable it was to spend time with others 

to learn from their experiences and approaches, and also to realise how many issues they had in 

common. The intensive sessions facilitated this, as did the problem solving sessions. Informal 

discussions over meals were also essential to the learning, which is why the program is a retreat held in 

a relatively isolated location. Freelancers always value interaction with in-house editors as do the latter 

value engaging with freelance concerns. The Alumni network then enables further communication to 

develop. [See 4. Course Outcomes.] 

Aim: 


their publisher’s business expectations. 

Outcome: Whilst the issue of business management in publishing is not addressed specifically in the 

REP, it comes up in all the discussions held during the intensives and in the problem solving sessions. 

Participants are very aware of the fact that ‘the edit’ is always subject to and must work in conjunction 

with publishing deadlines and marketing realities and that the editor’s role is to champion the book in that 

context. 


REPORT 

3. SUCCESSES/ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

“In the same way that you’d never walk into a stranger’s house and start rearranging their furniture, 

rummage through their medicine cabinet or point out dust behind the sofa, the editor enters a manuscript 

with a high degree of humility and objectivity. You study the author’s style and voice. You learn the 

story’s ultimate aim. Every comment is reasoned and, while the author might disagree, sometimes 

vehemently, you’ve put the long hours into weighing up the work to justify your opinions. Nothing is done 

flippantly. The author has lived in their creation for so long that they might not see some of its 

weaknesses, and the editor is in the best place to view the work with new eyes. This exchange of ideas, 

this mutual search for clarity between the author and editor forges a unique relationship, partly because 

the stakes are so high. Once the press begins to churn, the book is in the world.” Brandon VanOver, 

Guest Editor, REP 2012 

The Successes and Suggestions for Improvement of the Residential Editorial Program are 

measured here [as in 2. Values and Benefits above] on the projected Aims of the course. Responses to 

Course Content and Presentation were positive and very enthusiastic. Some suggestions were made 

concerning Course Scheduling, and some excellent refinements and possible topics for additional 

or alternative sessions were suggested as well. The major success of the course lay in its satisfying 

the expectations and needs of the participants. [See 5. Executive Summary & Recommendations] 

3.1. Successes 

Evaluations again cemented the uniqueness of this program, and the need for this and further such 

training: 

3.1.1. Success in Aims 

Aim: 

 

identify and develop the professional skills and knowledge required by good literary editors 


The course application process identified some very dedicated and talented young editors working in 

literary publishing, and the REP clearly was successful in answering their needs for further training and in 

invigorating their passion for editing. Each of them commented on how the course encouraged them to 

value their craft more, and gave them greater confidence. 

Aim: 

 

 

 

 

 



Richard Flanagan’s Keynote Address inspired the group by his respect for the craft of editing, as is 

evinced in their comments in this report. 

Ali Lavau encouraged participants to recognise how an author feels to be edited. Her background as 

both editor and writer enhanced this discussion and practical demonstration of such sensitivities. 

Both Double Act sessions (with Laura Harris and Melina Marchetta; and Steven Carroll and Jo 

Butler) cemented the notion that an editor builds a relationship with an author in many different (and 

mysterious!) ways. 

Indigenous issues were addressed in the Black & Write! Project session with mentor Sue Abbey and 

trainee editors Linda McBride and Ellen van Neerven-Currie. [See 5.2. Executive Summary & 

Recommendations 3] 


REPORT 

Aim: 

 

 

 

enable interaction between editors of a similar level and thereby encourage them to raise the 

awareness and profile of editors in the literary and publishing community 

Participants and mentors relished the opportunity to spend time with each other and to engage with 

new concepts and ideas as well as sharing common concerns. 

It’s clear that the REP has been widely spoken about within the industry, and is regarded as a 

prestigious and elite program. This has raised the profile of editing, in cementing the value which 

practitioners and their employers place in their craft. 

Aim: 

 

 



Participants were able to discuss this issue in a safe and confidential environment and to develop 

strategies for balancing the creative and business aspects of their work. 

3.1.2. Success in Course Content 

Course content and the skills of the mentors and speakers were universally well-received. 

Intensive Editing Sessions: Mentors – Jo Jarrah, Jacqueline Kent and Roberta Ivers – had specific 

comments on these sessions in which they worked in three groups: 

Jo Jarrah worked with: Sarah Hazelton (Freelance), Rebecca Starford (Affirm Press), Vanessa 

Pellatt (Allen & Unwin), Nikola Lusk (Black Inc). She concluded: 

 

“I have relatively few comments to make for once, largely because although we always seem to say 

it, it really was ‘the best yet’, at least of the four at which I’ve been a mentor. After a wobbly start 

finding the right manuscript (and all credit to Jacquie for pushing the issue, and Bert for valiantly 

joining the hunt), we ended up with a ms that worked brilliantly for us on a number of levels, and 

personally I’m deeply grateful to the publisher and author for allowing the ms to be workshopped, 

and to Brandon VanOver, the book’s real editor, for so generously sharing his work with us in the 

final session. 

Not revealing the identity of the author until midway through the week was significantly affecting for 

three of the four editors in my group (one already knew), which is not surprising given this author’s 

pedigree. While I understand that the author’s identity had little or no effect on participants in other 

groups, I would still recommend we retain it as, at least for some, it provides a rare and powerful 

opportunity for individuals to learn something invaluable about themselves and their preconceptions 

as editors, and about the publishing process. The intensive editing workshop is at the heart of the 

REP and we were extraordinarily fortunate to have such a ms to work with. It highlights the crucial 

role publishers (and authors) play in the success of the REP by allowing us to work on a ms of this 

nature. 

I was also grateful for the extra half-hour we had each day this year. It didn’t seem to cost 

participants too much to rise half an hour earlier, and the time was certainly put to good use – in 

fact yet another half-hour, making the daily intensive editing workshop four hours each day – would 

be wonderful, but I don’t know where the extra time would come from. 

As for my group, what a delight they were. Vocal (gosh yeah!), opinionated (in the best possible 

way) and prepared to travel down what must have seemed some strange paths at times, they were 

committed, passionate, sensitive, highly talented editors eager to deepen their editorial skills on 

every level. The Australian industry is in very good hands if we can continue to train – and then 


REPORT 

retain – editors of this calibre, and I want to thank them for, amongst many other things, their 

willingness, generosity, trust and frankness. 

Finally, as always, the whole shebang was brilliantly organised, stage managed and hosted by 

Robyn Sheahan-Bright, whose extraordinary talents, skills, commitment and expertise make all the 

difference between an adequate REP and an outstanding one.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

Jacqueline Kent worked with: Emma Rafferty (Pan Macmillan Australia), Caro Cooper (Text 

Publishing), Susannah Chambers (Allen & Unwin), Arwen Summers (Penguin Group Australia). 

She concluded: 

 

“Conducting these with the group I had was very satisfying. As it happened I was the mentor for four 

of the most experienced REP participants this year. They were focused, perceptive and very bright, 

with a good practical grasp of the manuscript’s problems, enough experience to know how to 

present these to the author, and sufficient editorial expertise to know how to solve the problems. 

They were a joy to work with, and their collaborative spirit was terrific.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

Roberta Ivers worked with: Chren Byng (HarperCollins Publishers Australia), Kylie Mason 

(Freelance), Catherine Milne (Allen & Unwin), Bridget Maidment (Penguin Group Australia). She 

concluded: 

 

I think the manuscript we chose was a really wonderful one, so it was really worth pushing that 

search, even though it took us some time. The issues covered theme, character and plot, which in 

my experience are pretty representative problems of manuscripts in general. I think all the workshop 

sessions were really valuable and provided extensive exposure to the wide-ranging issues facing 

editors working in the industry today, but the intensive editing sessions -- in particular the generous 

amount of time allocated to chew over the issues – were especially helpful I think. We all needed 

that time to get to know each other, to feel comfortable in talking about our individual interpretations 

of the manuscript and what we understood of the author’s intentions and to take on board the 

expectations of the week’s work – not to mention tackling the big issues from a group perspective! I 

was so impressed with the editors in my group; they were so considered and thoughtful – and 

passionate about what they are doing – and I was bursting with pride for them in their final 

presentation. Talk about rising to the challenge. And of course I gained so much as well, as you do 

when you’re talking intensively about the process.’ Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

Participants also commented on these intensive sessions: 

 

 

 

“I really liked the flexibility that the mentors had in tailoring the presentation to their own styles and 

to the needs and interests of their groups. It was also good to cover different aspects on different 

days, e.g. detailed copyedit of chapters, followed by writing a sample edit letter. This gave us some 

milestones to track our progress without being too prescriptive.” Sarah Hazelton 

“The chosen manuscript was a useful resource, because it enabled us to discuss all aspects of 

structural and copy-editing. Our workshops also enabled us to discuss a number of related editorial 

issues, such as workflow processes and author management.”… “Jo Jarrah was a brilliant mentor: 

she’s thoughtful and patient, and she was very good at drawing each of our group members out to 

discuss various points. She was extremely supportive of each of us while being open and honest 

about weaknesses in our editorial skills. I also learned a lot from my other group members about 

editorial skills and processes.” Nikola Lusk 

“Intense! Maybe one session too long but the workshops overall didn’t feel overly long. Fascinating 

to hear the editor of the book finally come and talk. Felt like the quality of the group discussion was 

high, and the presentations on Friday really showed how carefully and intelligently people had 

approached the ms”…–“Well lead by Jacqui Kent; each day had a clear structure and the discussion 

didn’t feel like it meandered or like we got stuck on one particular area too long.” Arwen Summers 


REPORT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The intensive editing workshops were incredible: inspiring, reassuring and so helpful. Working with 

the other three editors was invaluable in terms of learning new ways to look at editing, manuscripts 

and the author/editor relationship ... I thought the length of each workshop was well judged – long 

enough to get some good work done but not so long that we exhausted ourselves.” Kylie Mason 

“Roberta Ivers was an amazing mentor. She seemed to know what we each needed from her, and 

she made us all feel safe – and empowered. Bert gave me so much confidence in myself.” Chren 

Byng 

“These were excellent. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to work so closely with other editors 

and to gain the insights and wisdom of our experienced and fantastic mentor.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“Excellent. Very instructive, invaluable insights into the way not only the mentor works, but how 

editors in other houses work. It was particularly great to pick the brains of Jo Jarrah, who was an 

inspirational and generous mentor, I felt very privileged to be in her group!” Rebecca Starford 

“At first, I wondered how we would talk about the manuscript for 5 days. Then I realised we could 

talk about it for weeks. That time taken to rake over the text, and all its components, was so 

important and instructive – and it has had a profound impact on my own approach to editing. 

Couldn’t fault it.” Rebecca Starford 

It’s difficult to separate the content of these sessions from our mentor’s approach to the task, so I 

won’t try to. Bert took an extremely considered and systematic tack – methodically going through 

big-picture concerns, the process mirroring her own (very able) process of structural editing. Bert 

was generous with her expertise, as well as being open and encouraging of our views. In the end, it 

felt like a true group effort, which I’d mark as a success. I really appreciated that Bert came to the 

project looking to find the best in the MS; it would have made for hard graft otherwise. I think she 

brought out the best in all of us … In summation, these sessions were valuable because of the 

thoughtful and talented editors in my group, all of whom brought to life a manuscript that I’d initially 

struggled to see much merit in. I got a great deal out of these sessions. “ Bridget Maidment 

“I found the intensive editing workshops to be incredibly beneficial, especially hearing how other 

experienced editor would approach the MS…Very well organised and handled.” Emma Rafferty 

“I really valued the opportunity to engage so deeply with the manuscript, to discuss it in-depth with 

my group, and to soak up our mentor Jacquie’s wisdom. When you are working in-house, you often 

don’t get the time to really dwell with a manuscript, so the intensive editing workshops were both 

challenging and refreshing … The multitude of issues raised, the different approaches suggested by 

members of my group – and the other groups during the final presentation – were very thought 

provoking, and a fabulous reminder of the subjectivity of editing and the need to both trust your own 

instincts and at the same time temper your zeal.” Susannah Chambers 

“These workshops were presented really well. Jackie was a great facilitator and mentor.” Caro 

Cooper 

“These were the highlight of the week for me. Our group approached the manuscript in such a 

respectful but incredibly detailed and objective way. I learned so much and was completely inspired 

by our close, considered and thoughtful reading of the manuscript – it was like a masterclass in 

structural editing. Roberta taught us how to read, analyse and respond to the manuscript – but more 

than that, she taught us how to have the courage of our conviction and take leaps of intuitive 

understanding – to trust our instincts when it came to the text. It was really rigorous, yet 

inspirational.” Catherine Milne 

One-on-One Sessions with mentors were optionally scheduled each day as well: 

 

“Participants have always seemed very keen to have these but I found myself running into time 

problems this year, sometimes cutting things off too abruptly and even then running late for the 


REPORT 

2.30pm session, and I wondered whether the timing of them on the schedule might be given as 1.50 

– 2.20pm, which would allow time to wind down properly (sometimes a bit of emotion is involved) 

and do a loo visit without being late or rushed for the first afternoon session. ‘Free time or’ could be 

cut from the session title on the timetable so there’s no confusion – plus in any case participants 

know their time is free until 2.30 unless they have their one-on-one. Then again, perhaps this is a 

simple case of me needing to sort out my personal time management difficulties!” Jo Jarrah, 

Mentor 

Problem Solving Sessions: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The problem-solving sessions worked well. Though by nature they are probably always going to be 

bitsy and require juggling upfront to establish some semblance of cohesion, it was certainly liberating 

not to have to come up with twelve discrete issues, which was the premise we were labouring under 

at their inaugural appearance in 2010. Because they are so focused, these sessions remain a huge 

improvement on the old ‘General issues’ session, and they should definitely stay as an hour-long 

daily session (instead of being cut to half an hour, as is occasionally mooted) because of the intense 

discussion they generate. The only change I might be inclined to suggest is that mentorees be asked 

to nominate two or three issues of most concern to them rather than just ‘an issue’ so that there is a 

bit more variety and room to move.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

“The problem-solving sessions were useful in terms of delivering some practical strategies and also 

very cathartic!” Nikola Lusk 

“I really enjoyed the problem solving sessions’ presentation. Group discussion of issues editors face 

daily helped me feel that I’m not alone – particularly working as a freelancer – and showed me 

everyone comes across the same problems.” Kylie Mason 

“Absolutely loved these group therapy sessions! It was great to hear practical advice from the other 

participants and the mentors.” Chren Byng 

“I particularly enjoyed the problem-solving sessions. It is always interesting to hear other people’s 

solutions to dealing with very common problems.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“I very much enjoyed all the workshops and sessions. The problem solving was great, especially 

discussing amongst the individual groups.” Rebecca Starford 

“The problem solving sessions were fabulous. It was a great opportunity to share horror stories and 

solidarity, as well as providing genuinely useful strategies.” Susannah Chambers 

“The group problem solving sessions were great too.” Emma Rafferty 

Other sessions were all very well-received and their presentation was praised as well [See 3.1.3. 

below]: 

 

 

 

“Guest speakers: Overall I found the afternoon/evening program to be excellent: rich, full, tight, well 

balanced and ‘just right’ in terms of both content and the demands made on participants in a very 

demanding week.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

“I thought all the sessions were terrific. The problem-solving sessions in the afternoons were 

terrific… Guest presenters were uniformly very good.’ Sarah Hazelton 

“All of the presenters were fantastic and so generous with their time and the amount that they were 

willing to share with us. It encouraged a very open and honest discussion of a number of issues.” 

Nikola Lusk 


REPORT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Every guest speaker/s showed us a new perspective and broadened my own personal 

understanding of the industry. How it works, where it’s headed, how we can approach things in new 

and innovative ways.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“I really enjoyed the workshops and sessions that offered us the chance to work as one large group 

and enabled all the smaller groups to mix together…All very well presented by confident, capable 

and reputable speakers who imparted invaluable wisdom to us all.” Caro Cooper 

“I thought the content of all the sessions and workshops was well-pitched, interesting, and relevant 

… I thought the presentation … was terrific – the speakers were engaging and knowledgeable.” 

Susannah Chambers 

“All presentations were presented really well.” Emma Rafferty 

“All other sessions were great. It was fantastic learning from other publishers/editors how they 

approached a structural edit, and the questions they asked themselves. Even the copyediting 

session, which I was dreading, was really quite useful.” Catherine Milne 

“I really loved these sessions and knew the editors got a lot out of them, too. Each one brought a 

different and fascinating insight into the editorial and publishing process.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

Comments re specific sessions were as follows: 

Walking the Thin Red Line: Keynote Address/Richard Flanagan: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Richard Flanagan’s opening session was simpIy the best beginning to the week we could have had, 

so much so that I would like to suggest that the keynote address always be given by an author, not 

just to make up for a dropped author session (if that should eventuate – see elsewhere), but 

because it places the most important part of the equation – the writer – and their relationship with 

editing, right upfront in the week.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

“Richard Flanagan had clearly devoted a great deal of thought to his talk, which was stimulating and 

engaging.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“Just fantastic. We couldn’t have had a better speaker than Richard. He’s an authentic writers’ writer 

– and an authentic editor’s writer, too! He gets editors, which was just so inspiring. And he brought 

the Gunter Grass gem with him, which was an unexpected and brilliant bonus.” Roberta Ivers 

“Richard’s talk did a great job of setting the tone for the week, both thematically and in terms of the 

collegiate spirit that became apparent over the course of the REP.” Sarah Hazelton 

“Richard Flanagan’s keynote address hit the right balance of inspiring us about the value of editors 

and reminding us of the sorts of things that a good editor should strive for… Richard Flanagan is an 

extremely charismatic speaker, and this was no exception.” Nikola Lusk 

“A great start to the program! ... Made us all feel rather important.” Arwen Summers 

“…was a great start to the week. It was lovely to hear how much he appreciated editors he certainly 

knew his audience!” Kylie Mason 

“Richard Flanagan’s keynote address was the perfect way to start the week. His brilliant line about 

removing branches without turning the wilderness into topiary will stay with me…. [he] was a 

powerful and passionate speaker. Many of the things he said kept coming back to me as the week 

progressed.” Chren Byng 


REPORT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“What a relief to have an author come in and say nice things about their working relationship with 

their editor. And even though Richard has had a few different editors, he seems to retain a 

willingness to be edited and can see the value in it. Good news for our futures and the quality of our 

books!” Vanessa Pellatt 

“This was outstanding: Richard, being the total rock star that he is, completely nailed it. His erudite, 

thoughtful address made us all feel valued and valuable from the very start of proceedings – it made 

me feel proud to do what I do. The fact Richard had us all utterly transfixed despite the soporific 

effects of the wine and the roaring fire was testament to how great that talk was. I’ll remember it for 

a good long while, I should think.” Bridget Maidment 

“Richard Flanagan’s address was a great beginning to the week. His experiences of the 

author/editor relationship, and his thought provoking comments about editors not being afraid to 

speak out and take credit for themselves – especially in this new world where the traditional role of 

publishers is changing – were great ideas to carry through the week.” Susannah Chambers 

“This bolstered my esteem as an editor. it was very interesting to hear the other side of the story. A 

wonderful speaker.” Caro Cooper 

“I thought Richard Flanagan was absolutely fantastic: inspirational and informative. A great opening 

address.” Emma Rafferty 

“Richard Flanagan was a wonderful, warm and inspiring speaker – his talk to us was a real 

standout.” Catherine Milne 

Structural Editing Workshop/Louise Thurtell: 

 

“I particularly enjoyed the sessions run by Louise Thurtell and Ali Lavau, which reinforced the 

subjects we considered in the Intensive Editing Workshops.” Kylie Mason 

 

 

“Louise Thurtell’s editing session was interesting.” Nikola Lusk 

“Louise Thurtell’s session was great, consolidating as she did the core issues facing editors when 

they work with fiction in particular.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

Double Act / Laura Harris and Melina Marchetta: 

 

 

 

“The two sessions between authors and their editors were extremely valuable, because it’s so rare 

to get such an insight into other editor–author relationships.” Nikola Lusk 

“And while it was interesting hearing the very particular relationships that develop between one 

editor and one author, beyond a certain point some became so specific and subjective that I 

wondered how much I would take away from their relationship that could be relevant to my own 

working relationships.” Arwen Summers 

“Melina Marchetta was interesting, but I thought it was a little too similar to Steven Carroll/Jo Butler 

(which was fascinating in the sense that you got to see the way they worked/communicated 

together, and the way an author might not understand the pressures of time – ie. 5 days on the 

phone). But these are minor quibbles, of course – as it was all so interesting and insightful!” 

Rebecca Starford 

How Does it Feel/ Ali Lavau: 

 

“The ‘How It Feels’ session with Ali Lavau was surprisingly difficult, which is exactly the point.” 

Nikola Lusk 


REPORT 

 

 

 

 

“This session was confronting for me, but it really did give me a sense of the vulnerability that comes 

from putting yourself out there, on paper… Ali Lavau was the perfect person for this session. Her 

perspective as both author and editor was invaluable.” Chren Byng 

“All fantastic. Ali’s session on the dual role of editor/author particularly interesting.” Rebecca 

Starford 

“Ali’s session was another highlight – it was tremendously powerful, and Ali is an out-and-out gem.” 

Bridget Maidment 

“Ali Lavau’s session was brutal – in a good way! – and a very pertinent reminder of what it feels like 

to be on the receiving end of an edit.” Susannah Chambers 

Black & Write: Indigenous Editing and Writing Project/Sue Abbey, Linda McBride-Yuke and Ellen 

van Neerven-Currie: 

 

 

 

 

“The Indigenous editing session was inspiring.” Nikola Lusk 

“Good, especially the Indigenous publishing session, which is always a highlight at REP.” 

Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“I would really like to see the Indigenous publishing session given more publicity, if that’s possible. 

What is happening in that area is so interesting and invigorating that it deserves to be more widely 

known. Surely Geordie Williamson, Susan Wyndham, Stephen Romei, Romona Koval’s successor 

and even Jennifer Byrne (!) should be told about this – not necessarily invited to attend the session, 

of course, but encouraged to interview the Indigenous editors and publishers and to write about the 

program.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“And the Black and Write! Session was interesting and inspiring.” Susannah Chambers 

Double Act/ Jo Butler and Steven Carroll: 

 

 

 

“I found the author/editor sessions to be the most valuable out of the other sessions.” Emma 

Rafferty 

“… it’s interesting to get a window into how other editors work …” Bridget Maidment 

“All of the speakers were excellent. Listening to writers and editors discuss their working 

relationships together in the Double Act sessions was eye-opening!” Susannah Chambers 

The Beatrice Davis Editorial Fellowship/Jane Morrow: 

 

 

 

 

“Jane Morrow and Joel Naoum provided some interesting insights into what lies ahead for editors in 

terms of ebooks and digital publishing.” Nikola Lusk 

“Great. I took the most out of Jane Morrow’s, as it was the most engaging and practical – and also 

gave an insightful perspective into the publishing industry outside of Australia.” Rebecca Starford 

“I loved the sessions that looked at industry-wide issues – in particular those that looked at digital 

advances, the where-are-we-headed ones with Joel and Jane.” Bridget Maidment 

“I also enjoyed the sessions by Jane Morrow and Joel Naoum that touched on the future of books 

and gave much food for thought.” Kylie Mason 


REPORT 

Participants’ Session (Optional): 

This session was a ‘closed’ session for participants only, and seemed to have gone very well. 

The Big Picture: Participants and Mentors 

 

“In 2010 we moved the presentation session from Saturday to Friday which continues to prove a 

successful change to the program. Participants value having that session completed prior to the 

evening dinner and prior to the guest editor’s session the following morning: they come to the latter 

unstressed and ready to learn from the editor’s insights. (The guest editor is also given now more 

time on the Saturday to address the editorial issues and this year that ninety minutes was wellspent.)” 

Robyn Sheahan-Bright 

The Future of Editors and Editing/Joel Naoum: 

 

 

 

 

 

“Joel’s presentation on Momentum, among other things, was fascinating, as was Jane Morrow’s on 

the state of play in the US.” Arwen Summers 

“Please, please, keep all the digital/emerging technologies sessions – these were just terrific.” 

Bridget Maidment 

“Joel Naoum’s and Jane Morrow’s talks were very complementary – giving us a glimpse into the 

future of editing, and places, like Momentum and various US publishers, where the future is now!” 


“I found Joel’s talk excellent.” Emma Rafferty 

“I appreciate the necessity of starting to train up editors in this sort of stuff, and that my own level of 

understanding of coding/HTML is very limited.” Rebecca Starford 

Write of Response/ Brandon VanOver: 

 

 

“The group presentations and final session with Brandon VanOver was extremely useful to help us 

wrap up our work for the week and zoom out to the overall picture after so much detailed work.” 

Nikola Lusk 

“It was fantastic to hear about the actual editorial process, after spending so long discussing the 

manuscript in a hypothetical way.” Chren Byng 

Individual Group De-Brief: 

 

“The move of presentations to Friday, in 2010, has also allowed time for each group to have a ‘debriefing’ 

before the final session.” Robyn Sheahan-Bright 

Summing Up/Participants and Mentors 

 

“This session was a happy conclusion to the week during which presentations were made, 

comments shared, and vows for the future made as well!” Robyn Sheahan-Bright 

3.1.3. Success in Course Presentation 

Intensives: 

 

“It was fantastic to have access to this manuscript, and great to have so much time to really go deep 

and have long conversations about so many aspects of the work. I absolutely loved these sessions: 


REPORT 

sitting in the sunny lounge room at Varuna, with such lovely, talented people, talking about editing!” 

Chren Byng 

 

 

 

 

“The amount of time allocated for these workshops and the way they were structured created a safe 

working environment and gave us the time we needed to focus so intently on the manuscript and 

improving our skills.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“Great. I liked the informality of it – and the openness of the environment. That was one of the best 

things about the REP – an open, nurturing environment where questions could be asked without fear 

of feeling ignorant or ill-informed.” Rebecca Starford 

“The format of the discussion and mentoring sessions worked very well.” Susannah Chambers 

“It was fascinating to see the slightly different ways in which the mentors and their groups 

approached the structural editing process – and their conclusions at the end of the process, during 

the presentation – so interesting.” Catherine Milne 

Keynote Address: 

 

“The atmosphere of the Keynote Address felt very relaxed and companionable and was the ideal 

way to be introduced to a week of hard, rewarding work.” Kylie Mason 

Other Speakers’ Sessions: 

 

“Obviously this is dependent on the presenter but the standard was high.” Arwen Summers 

3.1.4. Success in Course Scheduling 

The REP is an extremely full program, and yet its planning was universally commended, although some 

fatigue set in toward the end of the week: 

 

 

 

“There’s no doubt the program is very intense, but that’s all part of its success – the editors are there 

to absorb as much as possible, and they do, demonstrably. I know there is a pretty high degree of 

fatigue at the end of the day, when the second workshop or session is held, usually by a guest 

editor/publisher/author etc, but again I can’t see how we can avoid that, bar intravenous caffeine!” 

Roberta Ivers 

“It was great to talk out our findings with the manuscript too, but I found by the final day that we all 

seemed a bit sick of the ms. Perhaps have this a day earlier” Rebecca Starford 

“I have only slight and gentle criticisms: by the last session we were really just trawling back over the 

same territory, and the copyediting session wasn’t overly enlightening, but it was a comfort to know 

we were all on the same page, as it were.” Bridget Maidment 

[See 3.2.2. below] 

3.1.5. Success in Course Organisation 

Participants and mentors were very positive about the management of the course. 

3.1.6. Success in Course Venue and Facilities 

Both the accommodation at the Palais Royale and the use of Varuna as the program venue, were judged 

to be excellent: 

 

“Catering was excellent. It’s great to have the program in the mountains because the physical 

distance from work/home is conducive to concentration. Accommodation was good. Varuna itself is 


REPORT 

a great place for the REP because of the atmosphere, and also because groups can comfortably 

split and re-form.” Sarah Hazelton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Varuna is the perfect location for the REP: everyone has to travel to get there, so it has this sense 

that we’ve all properly escaped our lives for the week to focus on editing. Being able to walk down 

the road and see the Three Sisters was very special. Sheila’s catering was delightful and varied, and 

the accommodation was certainly adequate (though I’m jealous of the writers who get to stay at 

Varuna).” Nikola Lusk 

“It was lovely to be able to walk from the hotel to Varuna each morning. And Varuna itself felt like 

such a safe, creative and supportive environment. I’m still missing Sheila’s cakes!” Chren Byng 

“Varuna was lovely. The hotel was fine – the rooms were a bit noisy but not disastrously so. The 

catering at Varuna was fabulous and being able to enjoy a nice glass of red wine with dinner and 

then not having to wash up was such a nice change. Having regular meals was a nice change!” 

Vanessa Pellatt 

“I can’t fault the location, venue, catering or accommodation. Varuna is a lovely place to spend a 

week, it has the wonderful atmosphere, just right for the program.’ Kylie Mason 

“Couldn’t fault any of it – superb. Thanks.” Bridget Maidment 

“Obviously, based in Melbourne, the location isn’t ideal – but it did make it feel all the more retreatlike, 

which I certainly benefitted from (I felt much more relaxed than I normally do in a working 

environment, a feeling I think shared by many). Food was wonderful, hotel great. It was really nice to 

have morning tea and lunch together, as well as a glass of wine in the evening, a great way to 

debrief.” Rebecca Starford 

“Varuna! So lovely. And the food was fabulous. Although I should not, perhaps, have eaten so much 

cake. The hotel was absolutely fine – and the walk to Varuna in the mornings was just the right 

length!” Susannah Chambers 

“Catering was amazing, as was the location. The accommodation was completely fine.” Caro 

Cooper 

“We were so well fed! We all felt so nurtured – the food was hot, plentiful and appeared seemingly 

as if by magic, just at the right time. Absolutely delicious.” Catherine Milne 

“All absolutely excellent.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“Varuna – couldn’t be better than working in the Dark house! Catering – all so good; too good, even. 

Still working off the extra kilos! Accommodation – great hotel, definitely can’t complain there!” 

Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

3.1.7. Success in Course Access and Participation 

The program manager is employed by the APA and access to their networks and publicity is invaluable 

to the program. [See 5.2. Executive Summary & Recommendations 6.] 

Participants from both smaller and larger houses attended, but it was disappointing not to have greater 

geographical representation, amongst successful applicants. The availability of scholarships enabled two 

freelancers access to the program. However, since 2006 there have been no successful Indigenous 

applicants, due to the lack of training to prepare Indigenous editors for this mid-career program. However 

the Black & Write program is developing these opportunities, and the APA is also working on developing 

editing skills with regards to working on Indigenous manuscripts, further. [See 5.2. Executive Summary 

& Recommendations 3] 


REPORT 

When asked how they found out about the course, participants responded variously, but clearly the 

feedback from REP alumni has been a significant factor in encouraging applications; past participants 

are doing a fabulous job in recommending the program to their peers: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Originally (six years ago), by speaking to alumni. Later, I saw the call for applications via Twitter.” 

Sarah Hazelton 

“My former colleagues at UQP, Rebecca Roberts and Christina Pagliaro, are REP alumni, and my 

former publisher, Madonna Duffy, is on the REP board. All three of them told me much about the 

program and encouraged me to apply.” Nikola Lusk 

“Other editors at Penguin had done it 5-6 years ago, and had talked about it positively.” Arwen 

Summers 

“I’d heard past participants talk about REP throughout my career and noticed the call for applicants 

in the Weekly Book Newsletter.” Kylie Mason 

“I heard about the REP from past participants, all of whom said it was the best thing they had done 

in their professional lives.” Chren Byng 

“Through REP graduate Elizabeth Cowell.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“I had already heard of it through industry website (APA, Bookseller & Publisher), but it was Robyn 

who recommended I apply directly. I probably wouldn’t have done so if I hadn’t been in touch with 

her – as I thought I probably didn’t have enough experience under my belt at that point of my 

career.” Rebecca Starford 

“I’d heard about Varuna through REP alumni and the Blue News.” Bridget Maidment 

“Several of my colleagues have completed the REP and all speak very highly of it. The REP is wellknown 

in the industry as an important and prestigious opportunity.” Susannah Chambers 

“I found out about the program through the Managing Editor at my work who completed REP in 

2010. Plus through the WBN.” Emma Rafferty 

“Being the one of the first editors through the REP in 1999 I’ve always been interested in the 

program.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

“Have been associated with it on and off since its inception.” Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

3. 2. Suggestions for Improvement 

Once again there were few complaints about the program: 

 

 

“I don’t have any. (I don’t think anything could have been done better.” Sarah Hazelton 

“None. No, really. Everything ran so smoothly and it was so well balanced between the group work 

and the professional presentations from people like Jane Morrow, Jo Butler and Melina Marchetta.” 

Vanessa Pellatt 

However, there were some very useful suggestions made regarding alternative or additional topics, and 

with regards to improvements in scheduling. Each time the REP has been planned, these suggestions 

have been taken into account, and the result is an evolving course which is tailored to the needs of 

participants, and to changing conditions in the industry. It’s important to continue to respond to these 

suggestions so that the program remains dynamic, and feedback has certainly indicated that it continues 

to offer relevant training: 


REPORT 

 

 

“Perhaps for the first of the problem solving sessions, the groups could be mixed up I loved my 

small group, and I loved the amount of time we got to spend together, but I wondered whether it 

would be nice to spend an hour in a different group, with a different mentor Just to build other 

connections and hear some new perspectives.” Chren Byng 

“Ali’s session was terrific, entertaining and insightful, but I think it might have been even more useful 

to have an author of fiction there as well (without their editor perhaps), to talk about the pros and 

cons of being structurally edited. What works, what doesn’t, etc.” Catherine Milne 

3.2.1. Suggestions for Future Content 

3.2.1.1. Intensive Sessions 

The choice of manuscript is crucial to the success of the program, and a number of comments reflected 

how well selected this was, and how grateful we were to the publisher and author for this manuscript. As 

in 2010, we kept the identity of the author and the title of the manuscript secret, and Jo Jarrah has 

commented on this in her comments above. No comments were made about the instructions which 

accompanied the manuscript, which appears to indicate that participants found them quite clear. 

3.2.1.2. Suggestions for Future Course Sessions and Workshops 

 

 

 

“POSSIBLE NEW SESSION: ‘Intervention/Sticky Issues’ to replace either one author/editor session 

or the structural editing session. I’d like to propose the committee consider replacing one of the 

existing sessions with one called something like ‘Intervention: what, why and how’ (role of the editor, 

knowing where you and the author are coming from, battles of expertise, taste, purpose and style, 

pursuing confidence with humility, convincing/negotiating with an author, drawing lines in the sand, 

whose book is it anyway etc). Hopefully it might also encompass some ‘Sticky Issues’ (which in fact 

could well be a session on its own), meaning all those elephants in the room that are so important 

but we are usually too nervous to talk about: racism, sexism, bigotry, Indigenous issues and so on, 

possibly including some legal considerations such as plagiarism. Why ‘Intervention’ As a number of 

us discussed during the week, this group was overall significantly less experienced than previous 

groups, and this is likely to be the case for at least the next REP. For fairly new editors especially, 

the most critical, ‘real’ issue seems to me to be related to handling the boundaries between author 

and editor, aka intervention – when do you step in and when do you step back, how and why 

Fitting in a new session would be very difficult, of course, given that it would mean dropping one 

of the existing sessions, which are all excellent. Forced to choose, I guess the most logical might be 

the structural session, because mentors could be asked to cover this formally in the workshop 

sessions, much as we now do with copy-editing, which used to have a separate joint session. 

Another option might be to drop one of the double-act sessions; while they can be wonderfully 

inspiring, we do have two of them, and some of the comparatively inexperienced editors may find 

these less useful than the sharing enabled by other sessions.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

“The double acts: I think it would be great if it was always an author/editor rather than 

author/publisher. I also think it would be invaluable to have a publisher/editor or even structural 

editor/copy editor duo, but I suspect this might be too hard to arrange.” Jo Jarrah, Mentor 

“I think compiling a collection of writings by well known and brilliant literary editors about the craft 

would be a really wonderful thing to give editors when they leave, for future reference and 

inspiration. Two of my editors asked me if I had some recommendations I could offer them – and I 

did – but I think most of the editors would really appreciate a collection of some really great bits of 

writing about editing and ways of thinking about it (even creative writing strategies are really helpful 

for editors), as well as a nice long recommended reading list. I’d be very happy to help compile a list 

of readings on that front (I know Nicola O’Shea would have some excellent recommendations, too). 

It could also be an interesting idea to set up a website for the program (via the APA maybe) that 

graduands of the program could access and add any readings or thoughts on the process that would 

be helpful for others This all costs money though and it may well be that any resourcing is needed 


REPORT 

just for the REP itself.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor [See 5. Executive Summary & Recommendations 

9.] 

When asked what topics future REP sessions might cover, suggestions made included: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“A discussion between a fiction and a non-fiction editor, or perhaps one between a writer of fiction 

and one of literary non-fiction, possibly chaired by an editor. Also a session with a literary critic (who 

could perhaps explain what these people mean when they say a manuscript is ‘badly edited’ …!)” 

Jacqueline Kent, Mentor 

“I think the digital stuff is going to need ongoing representation on the course –hearing Joel talk 

about it all was great (and a bit confronting, but in a good way) and I think there will be ongoing 

changes and improvements on that front so it may well be that digital work practices become a part 

of the program indefinitely until it’s hit saturation point.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor 

“It was great to have some ‘future of the book’ sessions to complement the other parts of the 

program; it would be great to take that further and perhaps discuss how ebooks and different ways 

of reading are affecting/will affect highly literary works; there’s hardly any data on this in Australia so 

far but I think more will be known about it by the next REP.” Sarah Hazelton 

“Obviously digital workflow skills will become more important in the next few years (and may be so 

by the next REP), and these would be useful to cover in a more detailed way. Otherwise, I think 

everything else was well covered.” Nikola Lusk 

“Would love to see a session with a commercial fiction editor and a literary fiction editor, talking 

about the differences between acquiring and working on these categories. Maybe Beverley Cousins 

and Nikki Christer from RH Or Belinda Byrne and Meredith Rose from Penguin (Although MR 

doesn’t acquire)” Arwen Summers 

“It could be interesting to hear an editor compare two or three different authorial relationships – to 

contrast the different styles one has to adopt depending on the author.” Arwen Summers 

“Could also be interesting to have a session with a very digital/web-savvy author and/or editor, 

where both are proactive online and with social media, possibly even doing digital short stories to 

promote their print books, to talk about how that may/may not affect the writing and editing, and 

whether or not this sort of self-promotion is important/relevant/detrimental to both an author’s career, 

as well as how it fits into the author/editor relationship. And of course the more the merrier when it 

comes to digital stuff…” Arwen Summers 

“It would be great if future REPs had a session on editing Indigenous writing and shorter form 

writing, given the move towards publishing shorter works as ebooks.” Kylie Mason . 

“Perhaps a session on children’s books I would have loved a session with an experienced picture 

book editor.” Chren Byng 

“Maybe with the growing (and disturbing) trend towards publishing houses outsourcing so much of 

their editing work, the REP could look at ways to keep both in-house and out-of-house editors up-todate 

with industry news, training and developments. And how to maintain the flow of communication 

between people so freelancers don’t feel isolated.” Vanessa Pellatt 

“More practical seminars on digital editing – onscreen, especially, as well.” Rebecca Starford 

“Professional development – in terms of negotiating promotions, strategies for rising within the 

organisation, transitions to management positions (if that is of interest to the individual). I also think it 

would be good to get a publisher (who doesn’t have an editorial background) in there to give a 

seminar on the business runnings of the company, so we can all get a better sense of what’s going 


REPORT 

on in other depart ments, so it doesn’t feel like editorial is always done on the thrift (which was the 

general attitude).” Rebecca Starford 

 

 

 

 

“A personal bias, of course, but I felt as though the program was heavily weighted towards fiction 

editing. The inclusion of session specifically looking at nonfiction issues could be a worthwhile 

edition” Bridget Maidment 

“I think future REPS must continue to discuss the changing role of the editor. As publishing houses 

lay-off staff, change their publishing and distribution models, and reorganise their business, what 

role will the editor have How do we make our value known both in-house and outside the industry 

Are our skills relevant outside the traditional publishing model How do we make sure they are” 


“I would retain the current format, and probably also include a session on moving into 

commissioning, as that’s where many/some senior editors want to head, and some tips on that 

transition would probably be helpful.” Emma Rafferty 

“I would like to see more on the future of editing in the changing environment. I also think that a 

refresher grammar session would be useful.” Caro Cooper 

Note: Several of these suggestions have already been implemented in the APA’s other professional 

training programs, and others may also be developed as stand-alone courses in future, since the REP 

can encompass only a finite number of topics within the parameters of the program. [See 4. Course 

Outcomes and 5. Executive Summary & Recommendations] 

3.2.2. Suggestions for Improvement of Course Scheduling 

Some suggested that a future program should adjust the length of some workshop sessions: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Structural workshop (or its replacement, if any) on Tuesday should ideally move to the afternoon, as 

it used to be, so that we have a full morning’s mentoring workshop. If I remember, this session was 

only moved to the morning in 2008 because Michael Heyward, who gave the session that year (as 

well as the keynote) could not do the afternoon, and we’ve never changed it back.” Jo Jarrah, 

Mentor 

“My only suggestion would be to possibly shorten the length of the days slightly, because I found 

that my eyes were occasionally glazing over during the 5.30–7pm sessions. I would have been 

happy to take a slightly shorter lunchbreak (or perhaps to shave some time off some of the 90- 

minute sessions) and either start slightly later or finish a little earlier.” Nikola Lusk 

“While I appreciate the need to cram everything into the schedule, I think the final session (ie before 

dinner) was often really tough going – ie. we were all really tired! I reckon you could trim lunch down 

to 45 mins or so, to save on time – have morning tea/afternoon tea at 20mins, and you’d save some 

time there, and the evening would finish earlier.” Rebecca Starford 

“Perhaps the length of the sessions could be brought back to an hour (or an hour and a quarter). 

Regardless of how interesting the speaker, the room seemed to get fidgety right on the hour mark. 

The seats … or just our dreadful tiny modern attention spans – who knows I’d also suggest that 

maybe one author–editor session is enough to cover it.” Bridget Maidment 

“Sometimes I felt that an hour and a half was half an hour too long for some of the presentations, 

especially if the speakers were staying for afternoon tea or dinner, which was a great opportunity for 

us to accost them for more information.” Arwen Summers 

“Some of the sessions were very long after a full day of editing. It would be a shame to shorten them 

but it may be necessary.” Caro Cooper 


REPORT 

3.2.3. Suggestion for Improvement in Venue and Facilities 

No real faults were recorded as all relished the environment, Varuna hospitality, and the catering. 

 

 

“Varuna is a great place to hold the REP, the hotel we stayed in was pleasant and well situated and 

the food at Varuna – well, don’t get me wrong, it was tasty, but I would’ve liked at least morning tea 

or afternoon tea to be comprised of fruit instead of cakes, bickies, more cakes, more bickies… Fresh 

is nice. But as you can see these are pretty small criticisms of the catering.” Arwen Summers 

“I think there was one meal where there wasn’t a vegetarian choice, so maybe this is something to 

be improved on next time.” Roberta Ivers, Mentor 


REPORT 

4. COURSE OUTCOMES (1999-2012) 

“I was initially a bit nervous myself coming back as a mentor, but that all faded very quickly when I 

realised just how much I had learnt and how many formative experiences I’ve had since my own REP. I 

love helping other less experienced editors learn to trust what their own instincts are.” Roberta Ivers, 

Mentor, REP 2012; participant, REP 1999 

This report provides substantial proof that the course has had widespread outcomes. 

4.1. Course Follow-up 

Apart from the outcomes detailed in each report, organisers and participants in the REP have continued 

to build on the findings of the REP and to develop programs which meet identified needs or gaps in 

professional training and networking opportunities. These further programs and events have included: 

 

 

Indigenous Editing Training Seminars organised by Dee Read for the APA with Janet Hutchinson 

(REP 2004 Alumni member and former REP speaker) and with writers such as Larissa Behrendt, 

also a former REP speaker). 

a series of Digital Editing Training Seminars organised by Dee Read for the APA and employing 

REP 2010 Alumni member Kevin O’Brien. 

Structural Editing Training Seminars organised by Dee Read for the APA and employing REP 2002 

Alumni member Nicola ‘O Shea and publisher Louise Thurtell. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the first REP Alumni Reunion Newtown, 8 May 2010 which was organised by Nicola O’ Shea and 

Robyn Sheahan-Bright and attended by over thirty former participants as well as mentors and 

committee members. 

panels at writers festivals eg an APA panel at the 2008 Sydney Writers Festival covered both the 

REP and the Beatrice Davis Fellowship and was attended by a large and enthusiastic crowd. 

the REP also provided inspiration for the organisation of the Cultural Awareness Training for Editors 

(CATE) by Aboriginal Studies Press (AIATSIS) in August 2009, which also employed Robyn 

Sheahan-Bright as Program Manager. 

sessions at the Institute of Professional Editors’ National Conferences eg Robyn Sheahan-Bright 

conducted a session at the National Editors Conference in Brisbane in 2004. 

addresses at state Society of Editors meetings by participants, mentors and organisers. 

participants conducting sessions in-house to pass on the key outcomes of their participation in the 

REP, and discussions in-house of the REP amongst their peers. 

on-going communication with their group members and mentors. One of the great benefits of the 

REP is the wider networks it makes possible eg Amanda Curtin (REP Alumni 2006) delivered a 

paper on fiction editing ‘But It’s Fiction!’ at the Institute of Professional Editors’ National Conference, 

From Inspiration to Publication, Hobart, May 2007 in which she quotes several of her fellow REP 

Alumni of 2006, as evidence of ongoing communication between the members of that group. 

several publishers are now conducting their own editorial ‘retreats’, presumably influenced by the 

success of the REP. 

articles in leading journals such as the Australian Book Review and the Bookseller & Publisher have 

further cemented the REP’s reputation. In 2008, Magpies, an influential children’s literature 

magazine, also featured an article on the program. 

4.2. List of REP Alumni 

Since 1999, eighty-four Australian editors have participated in the REP, most of whom continue to 

work in and contribute to the publishing industry. A list of REP Alumni (1999-2012) has been compiled 

and a survey of their current occupations has also been completed. [See Attachment D.] 


REPORT 

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1. Executive Summary: 

The success of the seventh Residential Editorial Program (REP) in 2012 has again highlighted the 

need for such intensive editorial training. 

5.2. Course Recommendations re Aims: 

This list draws on points made earlier in this report: 

Aim 1 

 

identify and develop the professional skills and knowledge required by good literary editors 


Recommendation 1: That the Residential Editorial Program (REP) continue to be supported financially 

as a biennial event, since it has consistently demonstrated its enormous benefit to participants, mentors, 

editors, speakers, and industry professionals and is obviously growing in reputation. 

Recommendation 2: That programming for future REPs take into account the suggestions made in this 

report for new/alternative sessions and that digital developments continue to be included in future 

programs. 

Aim 2 

 



Recommendation 3. That the absence of Indigenous participants in the REP 2012 continues to highlight 

a need for the Indigenous editorial training which was addressed by speakers in the Black & Write 

session. Whilst the APA is piloting some further training in this area, it is also recommended that the 

Australia Council, the APA and the publishing industry develop further program (s) to encourage 

Indigenous editors to enter the editorial profession. 

Aim 3 

 

enable interaction between editors of a similar level and thereby encourage them to raise the 

awareness and profile of editors in the literary and publishing community. 

Recommendation 4: That the REP is followed up by future interactions between members of the 

Alumni, such as reunions, and that the creation of an online website enabling communications and 

sharing of information between members of the Alumni be investigated. 

Recommendation 5: That members of the REP Alumni share their findings and train others both inhouse 

and in wider industry settings. 

Recommendation 6: That the REP and its findings be publicised amongst the wider publishing 

community with the assistance of the APA and other networks. eg that the APA posts a brief report on its 

website, that a session on editing be sponsored at the next IPED national conference, or at state Society 

of Editors’ meetings. 

Recommendation 7: That the funding of further mentoring schemes to assist editors working in-house 

be investigated. 

Recommendation 8: That the APA Professional Training and Development programs include courses 

recommended in the REP Reports. 

Recommendation 9: That the cost of producing a publication/compilation of editors’ views on their 

practice be investigated for presentation at the REP 2014. 

Aim 4 

 



Recommendation 10: That the APA conduct courses for editors on the business aspects of their work. 


REPORT 

6. FINANCIAL REPORT 

INCOME 

GRANTS & SPONSORSHIP 

Literature Board 60 000.00 

Publisher Support 18 000.00 

TOTAL INCOME 78 000.00 

EXPENDITURE 

 

Wages/Salaries/Fees/Allowances 

Mentors Fees @ $4675 x 3 14 025.00 

Speakers Fees @ 670 x 11 + 1x $550 7 920.00 21 945.00 

Allowances – Refer Travel / Accommodation 

Program Manager (Fees & Administration Costs incl home office, 

17 000.00 

teleconferences, printing programs, reports etc) 

Airfare to attend REP 638.10 17 638.10 

Promotion – Costs shared by PM and APA [See below] 

APA Administration Costs 

Administration Fee 7 000.00 

P MS Copying (reimbursed to PM) 264.95 

Postage (reimbursed to PM) 299.82 

S Stationery (reimbursed to PM) 109.35 

Certificate Design Nil 0.00 

Books 100.00 

Postage (Books) 254.62 

D Staff Travel - Mileage (DR) 235.98 8 264.72 

Committee Meeting Costs 

Airfares 

Catering 1 974.22 

Travel Costs(Speakers and Mentors) 

Air Travel 1 576.00 

Cabcharge / Road and Rail Travel 493.73 2 069.73 

Accommodation 

Accommodation (Palais Royale) [ie 18 people x 5 nights allowing for 2 guests 

per night @ $150 per head] Plus provision made for 9 extra nights but used 

11 @ $150 incl GST 14 700.00 

less GST -1 336.36 13 363.64 

Venue & Catering 

Venue Hire, Staffing & Housekeeping (Varuna) 5 000.00 

Catering 5 720.00 

Catering (Morning and Afternoon Tea) 325.60 

Catering (Extras) 260.00 

Program Dinner(Canton Palace) 790.00 12 095.60 

less GST -1 099.60 10 996.00 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 76 251.41 

Surplus: 1 748.59 

Note 1: Budget is exclusive of GST Note 2: Surplus will be used to implement strategy in 5. Recommendation 3. 


REPORT 

ATTACHMENT A. REP 2012 PLANNING TIMELINE 

Dates Actions By: 

December 2010 

Dee Read (APA) contacted by AustCo to 

Nicola Evans (AustCo) 

administer REP for 2012. 

December 2010 

Robyn Sheahan-Bright appointed as Program Dee Read 

Manager 

March 2011 Meredith Rose contacted to chair REP 2011. Dee Read(APA) 

1 April 2011 Venue (Varuna) Booked Monday 7- Saturday 12 DR/RSB / Varuna 

May 2012. 

June/July 2011 

Publishing industry members contacted to join DR, MR & RSB 

Committee. Meredith Curnow, Madonna Duffy, 

Nicola O’ Shea and Tegan Morrison. 

July 2011 

Quotes from key people to be sourced for Media RSB 

Release. 

June/July 2011 

Committee Agenda documents and Timeline RSB 

drafted and emailed to Committee. 

Monday 1 August 2011 1 st Committee Meeting held. Chair: MR Agenda : RSB 

Venue: DR 

Tuesday 2 August 2011 Palais Royale contacted for confirmation of RSB 

booking and costs. 

August 2011 

Richard Flanagan approached re being Keynote MR 

Speaker. 

August–September 2011 Palais Royale Invoice for deposit received and RSB, DR 

processed. 

August–September 2011 A Certificate of Attendance revised. DR 

August–September 2011 Budget developed. RSB and DR 

August–September 2011 

By Mid-September 

Before 26 September 

By Monday 12 September 

August 2011 – January 

2012 

Monday 26 September 

2011 

Application Form, Guidelines, Letter to Publishers 

and media release revised and finalised. 

Media List and Key Stakeholder addresses for 

mail-out on 26 September assembled. 

Publishers Letters merge- filed with addresses 

ready for posting. 

Contract Letter for Mentors and Speakers drafted 

by RSB and okayed by APA. 

Possible manuscripts investigated. 

Guidelines and application forms. sent with letters 

to publishers seeking financial support; also 

made available on APA website. Notice sent to 

key stakeholders: DW Thorpe WBN and B&P; 

Societies of Editors; Writers Centres; ABR, APA, 

ASA etc and to the media. 

Mentors contacted and confirmed. 

Keynote Speaker confirmed. 

All speakers confirmed and contracts sent. 

Residential Editorial Program 2012 28 

RSB 

DR with assistance from RSB 

DR with assistance from RSB 

RSB and DR 

Committee members 

RSB & DR 

By September 2011 

RSB 

MR and RSB 

September–November 

Ctte and RSB 

2011 

Friday 7 October 2011 Article in B & P on Training for Mid-career editors RSB and DR 

developed. 

September–October 2011 Varuna to finalise invoice to APA. RSB, DR and Varuna 

October 2011 Mentors to present first invoice. DR, RSB 

25 October 2011 Second WBN notice focussing on Richard DR, RSB 

Flanagan as Keynote Speaker. 

Wed 26 October 2011 1 st teleconference with mentors to discuss MR, RSB 

program. 

Thursday 27 October 2011 MS sent to mentors and chair for consideration. RSB

14 November 2011 Reminder in WBN and other media release re DR & RSB 

alumni and deadline issued. 

Mid-December 

2011/January 2012 

Recess Break. NB Manuscript (s) suggested by 

committee sent to Mentors, Chair and Program 

Mgr for consideration. 

MR, DR, RSB 

7 December 2011 Second teleconference to discuss manuscript. RSB, MR and mentors 

December 2011 Second manuscript sourced. RSB, MR and mentors 

13 December 2011 4 th focussed WBN Notice posted. RSB & DR 

3 January 2012 Second manuscript sent to mentors. RSB 

Monday 9 January 2012 Deadline for participants’ applications [sent to RSB & DR 

RSB c/- APA]. 

10–13 January 2012 Applications sent to committee members. DR 

January 2012 Reminder to speakers re travel plans. RSB 

January–February 2012 Copy for program to be worked on. RSB 

17 January 2012 Agenda of 3rd Teleconference with mentors and RSB 

chair to be distributed. 

18 January 2012 3rd Teleconference and ms confirmed by 

Mentors, MR, RSB 

mentors. Letter to be sent with ms to participants 

to be discussed and confirmed. 

January 2012 

Email of thanks to publisher and writer of 

RSB 

manuscript. 

Email and following letter of invitation to guest 

editor. 

January 2012 

Email to all speakers reminding them of travel RSB 

plans and providing bios etc. 

Tuesday 31 January 2012 2 nd Committee meeting to select participants and 

to discuss other matters such as program. 

All Program speakers decided and contracted by 

this date. 

Ctte & RSB 

Ctte & RSB 

Wednesday 1 February Participants notified of success; lack of success RSB, DR & MR 

2012 

via letter. 

Monday 6 February 2012 List of successful applicants and copies of their RSB 

applications sent to the three mentors. 

Monday 6 February 2012 Media Release for WBN to be prepared re DR and RSB 

successful applicants. 

Monday 6 February 2012 Email to participants re travel etc. RSB 

Wednesday 8 February Manuscript sent to participants with instructions. RSB 

2012 

February–March 2012 Emails to mentors, and speakers re map etc. RSB 

March 2012 

Email to Palais Royale (and Varuna) with details RSB 

of bookings calculated. 

March 2012 Program Copy finalised. RSB 

April/May 2012 Final PR before event. RSB & DR 

REPORT 

April/May 2012 

Monday 7–Saturday 12 

May 2012 

Final email to participants, mentors and speakers 

with details. 

REP 2012 

RSB & DR 


REPORT 

ATTACHMENT B. MENTORS’ ROLES 

Mentor Role: 

To act as mentor editor to 3–4 editors attending the Residential Editorial Program from 7–12 

May 2012. 

 

 

To advise, instruct and guide participants in the advancement of their skills as editors of 

literary materials (fiction and non-fiction). 

To liaise with two fellow mentors, with the Program Manager and the organizing Committee 

in planning and conducting the Program. 

Mentor Responsibilities: 

In consultation with Program Manager: 

 

 

 

 

To select manuscript to be workshopped during Residential Editorial Program 

To prepare editorial notes on selected manuscript(s) prior to Program 

To participate with the Program Manager in at least one and no more than three 

teleconferences prior to the Program 

To provide briefing notes for participants informing them of expectations in course 

preparation 

To attend Residential Editorial Program between 7–12 May 2012 

 

 

 

 

To conduct intensive editing workshops during the course of the Program 

To appraise the work of participant editors and provide relevant feedback during the 

conduct of the Program 

To liaise with other workshop leaders and guest speakers during the course of the Program 

To provide a brief report on outcomes, the format for which reportage will be provided by 

the Program Manager 

ATTACHMENT C. 

PROGRAM MANAGER’S ROLE 

The Program Manager’s contract was to manage the Residential Editorial Program under the 

Committee’s direction, from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2012. The REP 2012, like the previous six 

programs, addressed the professional training needs of senior literary editors either in-house or 

freelance. The brief was to: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attend all Committee meetings 

Coordinate the program as directed by the Organising Committee 

Invite and brief speakers 

Coordinate appropriate promotion and publicity 

Draft and update project guidelines 

Liaise with APA and the Literature Board on venue and accommodation options 

Attend the course 

Report on final outcomes to the APA and the Literature Board 


REPORT 

ATTACHMENT D. LIST OF REP ALUMNI 

i) List of REP Alumni 

The following list details the employment of the alumni at the time of the program. 

1999 Janet Austin (Lonely Planet); Rachel Bin Salleh (Magabala Books); Josie Douglas (IAD 

Press); Sue Grose-Hodge (Freelance); Roberta Ivers (Random House Australia); Belinda Lee 

(HarperCollins Publishers); Rowena Lennox (Freelance); Virginia Lloyd (Pan Macmillan 

Australia); Amanda O’Connell (Freelance); Rachel Scully (Penguin Books Australia); Susan 

Shortridge (National Library of Australia); Karen Ward (Allen & Unwin); Alex Watts (Penguin 

Books Australia). 

2002 Kirsten Abbott (Penguin Books Australia); Trischa Baker (Freelance); Marg Bowman 

(Freelance); Heather Cam (Penguin Books Australia); Nadine Davidoff (Random House Australia); 

Deonie Fiford (Hodder Headline); Ruth Gilbert (Magabala Books); Gina Inverarity (Wakefield 

Press); Rachel Lawson (Allen & Unwin); Christa Munns (Allen & Unwin); Nicola O’Shea 

(HarperCollins Publishers); Colette Vella (Allen & Unwin). 

2004 Christine Alesich (Penguin Books Australia); Sarah Brenan (Allen & Unwin); Joanna Butler 

(Random House Australia); Siobhan Cantrill (Simon & Schuster); Siobhan Gooley (Hodder 

Headline); Margrete Lamond (Scholastic); Margaret McDonell (Freelance); Eva Mills (Random 

House Australia); Robert Nichols (Australian War Memorial); Sarina Rowell (Pan Macmillan); Zoe 

Walton (Random House Australia); Nicola Young (Penguin Books Australia). [Unfortunately, Sarah 

Brenan (Allen & Unwin) was not able to attend.] 

2006 Sarah Brenan (Allen & Unwin); Justine Molony (Pandanus Books); Jessica Dettmann 

(Random House Australia); Saskia Adams (Penguin Group Australia); Alexandra Nahlous (Allen & 

Unwin); Catherine McCredie (Penguin Group Australia); Nicci Dodanwela (Penguin Group 

Australia); Anna Crago (University of Queensland Press); Michelle Madden (Penguin Group 

Australia); Lydia Papandrea (HarperCollins Publishers); Annabel Blay (Freelance); Amanda Curtin 

(Freelance). 

2008 Anne Rogan (Penguin Group Australia); Julian Welch (Random House Australia); 

Rebecca Roberts (Hachette Livre Australia); Cate Sutherland (Fremantle Press); Rob 

Cullinan (Unwin); Nicola Redhouse (Scribe Publications); Christina Pagliaro (University of 

Queensland Press); Tegan Morrison (Penguin Group Australia); Anne Reilly (HarperCollins 

Publishers); Gina Mercer (Island Magazine – Freelance); Katrina Webb (Penguin Group 

Australia); Janet Hutchinson (Freelance); Elizabeth Cowell (Random House Australia); 

Angela Handley (Allen & Unwin). 

2010 Chris Kunz (Random House Australia); Suzanne O’Sullivan (Scholastic Australia); Amy 

Thomas (Penguin Group Australia); Emma Schwarcz (Freelance); Catherine McCullagh 

(Freelance); Clara Finlay (Allen & Unwin); Nicola Redhouse (Scribe Publications); Christina 

Pagliaro (University of Queensland Press); Kimberley Bennett (Random House Australia); 

Catherine Day (Pan Macmillan Australia); Kate Ballard (Hachette Australia); Kevin O’Brien 

(Random House Australia). 

2012 Chren Byng (HarperCollins Publishers); Susannah Chambers (Allen & Unwin); Caro Cooper 

(Text Publishing); Sarah Hazelton (Freelance); Nikola Lusk (Black Inc); Bridget Maidment 

(Penguin Group Australia); Kylie Mason (Freelance); Catherine Milne (Allen & Unwin); Vanessa 

Pellatt (Allen & Unwin); Emma Rafferty (Pan Macmillan Australia); Rebecca Starford (Affirm 

Press); and Arwen Summers (Penguin Group Australia). 


REPORT 

ATTACHMENT D. LIST OF REP ALUMNI (Cont.) 

ii) Achievements and Current Occupations of REP Alumni 

A brief survey of the further achievements and current occupations in the publishing industry of the REP 

Alumni has been undertaken: 

REP Participants (1999): Janet Austin operates Janet Austin’s Editorial Services and was formerly a 

writer and Commissioning Editor for Lonely Planet; Rachel Bin Salleh continues to work freelance for 

Magabala Books as an editor; Josie Douglas became the publisher at IAD Press, spoke at REP 2002, 

and 2004, and became Indigenous Research Fellow at Charles Darwin University in 2005; Sue Grose- 

Hodge is no longer editing; Roberta Ivers was Senior Editor at Random House Australia, now works 

both freelance and for Hachette Australia, and was a mentor in the REP 2012; Belinda Lee is a 

freelance editor; Rowena Lennox is a freelance editor and writer, and was Program Manager of the 

REP (2002), Beatrice Davis Fellow (2003), and speaker at REP(2004); Virginia Lloyd is a freelance 

editor, author and literary agent based in NY; Amanda O’Connell is an in-house editor at HarperCollins; 

Rachel Scully is Executive Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Susan Shortridge was at the National 

Library in 1999 and her current work is unknown; Karen Ward is a freelance editor in Tasmania; Alex 

Watts is Publisher at Penguin Group Australia. 

REP Participants (2002): Kirsten Abbott is Associate Publisher at Penguin Group Australia; Trischa 

Baker is a freelance editor and publisher at Inkshed Press, a publishing services business; Marg 

Bowman worked at IAD Press until 2006, was a speaker at REP 2006, managed the Papunya Tula 

Artists Gallery in Alice Springs, and is now Sales and Marketing at Tjanpi Desert Weavers, Alice Springs; 

Heather Cam is Managing Editor at UNSW Press; Nadine Davidoff is a freelance editor in Victoria; 

Deonie Fiford is Voyager Publisher at HarperCollins having worked freelance, and as a Senior Editor at 

Hachette Australia, and in 2010 acted as editor for ABC Books/ HarperCollins; she was a member of the 

REP organising committee in 2007-8, and is a tertiary teacher of editing; Ruth Gilbert is a freelance 

editor in Canberra; Gina Inverarity is a freelance editor, works for Omnibus books in Adelaide, and has 

taught in the editing course at Adelaide TAFE; Rachel Lawson is Programme Leader, Publishing at 

Whitireia New Zealand, in Wellington, and has run a fiction editing mentoring programme; Christa 

Munns is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin; Nicola O’Shea is a freelance editor, established the editing 

course at Sydney University, was a member of the 2006 REP organising committee in 2005-6, 2008 and 

2010 and was a speaker at REP 2010; Colette Vella became a Beatrice Davis Fellow in 2007, spoke at 

REP 2008, was commissioning editor of fiction and narrative non-fiction for the Pier 9 imprint of Murdoch 

Books, and is now Executive Publisher at MUP. 

REP Participants (2004): Christine Alesich is a freelance editor in Canberra; Joanna Butler is 

Associate Publisher for Literary Fiction for Fourth Estate at HarperCollins Publishers, and was a speaker 

at the REP 2012; Siobhan Cantrill is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin; Siobhan Gooley works freelance 

for Hodder and Stoughton (UK); Margrete Lamond is Publisher at Little Hare Books; Margaret 

McDonell was appointed editor at IAD Press after attending the REP as a freelance editor and now 

freelances from Brisbane; Eva Mills is Associate Publisher – Children’s Books at Allen & Unwin; Robert 

Nichols is Senior Editor at the Australian War Memorial; Sarina Rowell is a freelance writer, book editor 

and script editor having previously been Senior Editor at Pan Macmillan; Zoe Walton is Publisher – 

Children’s Books at Random House Australia; Nicola Young is Senior Editor at Penguin Group 

Australia, and was a member of the REP organising committee in 2007-8. 

REP Participants (2006): Sarah Brenan is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin; Justine Molony is a 

freelance editor in Canberra, and was formerly at Pandanus Books in 2006; Jessica Dettmann is a 

freelance editor and writer, and was formerly Senior Editor at HarperCollins Australia; Saskia Adams 

spent ten years as an editor at Penguin Books and is now involved in animal rescue as co-founder of 

The Gift Fundraising and Community Group Solutions, and is an author; Alexandra Nahlous was 

Editorial Manager at Allen & Unwin and the Beatrice Davis Fellow (2008), was guest editor at REP 2010, 

and has since taken the position of Commissioning Editor at Pan Macmillan; Catherine McCredie is 

Senior Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Nicci Dodanwela is editor at Penguin Group Australia; Anna 

Crago is Philanthropy Manager at WaterAid in Australia, previously with Bush Heritage Australia in 


REPORT 

Melbourne, and with UQP; Michelle Madden is Senior Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Lydia 

Papandrea is Senior Editor at HarperCollins Publishers; Annabel Blay offers freelance manuscript 

assessment and editorial services; Amanda Curtin is a freelance book editor and writer in WA. 

REP Participants (2008): Anne Rogan is Managing Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Julian Welch 

has left Random House Australia and is freelancing; Rebecca Roberts is Senior Editor with UQP; Cate 

Sutherland is Children’s Publisher at Fremantle Press; Rob Cullinan is now managing his own gourmet 

food business and freelancing; Tegan Morrison moved from Penguin to Hachette Australia and is now 

Children’s Publisher at Harper Collins Australia; Anne Reilly is Senior Editor at HarperCollins Publishers; 

Gina Mercer is a writer, editor and academic; Katrina Webb continues as editor at Penguin Group 

Australia; Janet Hutchinson continues to freelance, and was a speaker in REP 2010; Elizabeth Cowell 

is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin; Angela Handley is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin. 

REP PARTICIPANTS (2010) Chris Kunz is Associate Publisher of Children’s and YA Books at Random 

House Australia; Suzanne O’Sullivan has been appointed Commissioning Editor, Lothian Children’s 

Books list for Hachette Australia, and was formerly at Walker Books and Scholastic Press; Amy Thomas 

continues as Senior Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Emma Schwarcz is a freelance writer and editor 

and teaches at RMIT; Catherine McCullagh is a Canberra based freelance editor; Clara Finlay is Editor 

at Allen & Unwin; Nicola Redhouse is a freelance writer and editor having left Scribe Publications; 

Christina Pagliaro is Senior Editor at the Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art); Kimberley 

Bennett is Editor at Random House Australia; Catherine Day was Managing Editor at Pan Macmillan 

Australia until mid-2012 when she resigned to take up a position outside the book publishing industry; 

Kate Ballard is Senior Editor at Hachette Australia; and Kevin O’Brien is Senior Editor at Random 

House Australia and has conducted done a range of training for the APA). 

REP PARTICIPANTS (2012) Chren Byng is Editor at HarperCollins Publishers Australia; Susannah 

Chambers is Senior Editor at Allen & Unwin; Caro Cooper is Editor at Text Publishing; Sarah Hazelton 

is now Commissioning Editor at Koala Books; Nikola Lusk is Editor at Black Inc; Bridget Maidment is 

Editor at Penguin Group Australia; Kylie Mason is a freelance editor; Catherine Milne has left Allen & 

Unwin to become Associate Publisher Non-Fiction, HarperCollins Australia; Vanessa Pellatt is Editor at 

Allen & Unwin; Emma Rafferty was promoted from Senior Editor to Managing Editor at Pan Macmillan 

Australia in June 2012; Rebecca Starford is Associate Publisher at Affirm Press; and Arwen Summers 

is Editor at Penguin Group Australia. 


REPORT 

ATTACHMENT E. 

PHOTOS 

Photo 1 (Cover) Back Row, left to right: Robyn Sheahan-Bright (REP Program Manager), Jacqueline 

Kent (Mentor), Sarah Hazelton, Bridget Maidment, Susannah Chambers, Kylie Mason, Chren Byng, 

Caro Cooper, Roberta Ivers (Mentor), Emma Rafferty 

Front Row, left to right: Nikola Lusk, Vanessa Pellatt, Rebecca Starford, Arwen Summers, Catherine 

Milne, Jo Jarrah (Mentor) 

Photo 2 Group 1: Caro Cooper, Jacqueline Kent (Mentor), Arwen Summers, Emma Rafferty and 



REPORT 

ATTACHMENT E. PHOTOS (Cont.) 

Photo 3 Group 2: Vanessa Pellatt, Nikola Lusk, Rebecca Starford, Jo Jarrah (Mentor), and Sarah 

Hazelton 

Photo 4 Group 3: Kylie Mason, Roberta Ivers (Mentor), Bridget Maidment, Chren Byng and 

Catherine Milne 


REPORT 


Photo 5: Meredith Rose (Chair, REP Organising Committee, 2012) and Robyn Sheahan-Bright 

Photo 6: Lis Bastian (CEO, Varuna), Nicola O’Shea (REP Committee member), Robyn Sheahan- 

Bright, and Richard Flanagan (Keynote Speaker) 


REPORT 


Photo 7: Richard Flanagan and Jacqueline Kent 

Photo 8: Foreground: Nicola O’Shea, Arwen Summers, Robyn Sheahan-Bright and Sarah Hazelton 

Background: Richard Flanagan, Jacqueline Kent and Meredith Rose 


REPORT 


Photo 9: Foreground: Robyn Sheahan-Bright, Roberta Ivers (mentor) and Sarah Hazelton Background: 

Nicola O’Shea, Emma Rafferty, Arwen Summers, Richard Flanagan, Jacqueline Kent and Meredith 

Rose 

Photo 10: Emma Rafferty, Jacqueline Kent and Meredith Rose 


REPORT 


Photo 11: Foreground: Jo Jarrah, Catherine Milne, Bridget Maidment, Rebecca Starford Background: 

Kylie Mason, Vanessa Pellatt, Susannah Chambers, Nikola Lusk and Caro Cooper 

Photo 12: Louise Thurtell (Publisher Arena imprint, Allen & Unwin) who spoke on structural editing 


REPORT 


Photo 13: Laura Harris (Publishing Director, Children’s Books, Penguin Group Australia) and Melina 

Marchetta (writer) with Rebecca Starford and Emma Rafferty 

Photo 14: Ali Lavau (editor and writer) who spoke on the feeling of being edited, with Emma Rafferty 

and Dee Read (Industry Professional Development Manager, APA) 


REPORT 


Photo 15: Sue Abbey, Linda McBride-Yuke and Ellen van Neerven-Currie (Black & Write project) 

Photo 16: Sue Abbey and Linda McBride-Yuke 


REPORT 


Photo 17: Jo Butler (Associate Publisher, Literary Fiction, Fourth Estate, HarperCollins) Jacqueline 

Kent and Steven Carroll (writer) 

Photo 18: Jane Morrow and Jacqueline Kent (Recipients of the Beatrice Davis Fellowship, 2011 and 

1994) 


REPORT 


Photo 19: Joel Naoum (Unwin Trust Fellowship recipient, 2011, and Publisher, Momentum Books, 

Macmillan Australia’s digital imprint) who spoke on the future of editing 

Photo 20: Dee Read, Brandon VanOver (Senior Editor, Random House Australia) who was guest 

editor, and Roberta Ivers 


REPORT 


Photo 21: Back Row, left to right: Jacqueline Kent (Mentor), Dee Read (APA), Sarah Hazelton, Bridget 

Maidment, Susannah Chambers, Kylie Mason, Chren Byng, Caro Cooper, Roberta Ivers (Mentor), 

Emma Rafferty Front Row, left to right: Nikola Lusk, Vanessa Pellatt, Rebecca Starford, Arwen 

Summers, Catherine Milne, Jo Jarrah (Mentor) 

Photo 22: Jo Jarrah (Mentor) leaving Eleanor Dark’s writing studio, in the grounds of Varuna, where Jo 

worked with her group during the REP 2012

Sessions Summary - Australian Publishers Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?