What are the benefits and drawbacks of expanding what we consider to be ‘translation’? Do new angles and viewpoints offer us a way to rethink translation that is ultimately productive, or do they conflate different actions (e.g. adaptation, interpretation) and result in less rigorous thinking? It seems that both are possible or even inevitable. If so, how do we balance these competing forces when comparing, for example, translation to psychoanalysis (this week) or to post-colonial writing(last week)?