Projects in memory studies are best driven by topic not tradition, because the phenomena under investigation are usually interactive, not neatly compartmentalized. This imposes open-endedness not only in tracing diverse activities of remembering across the spread of relevant disciplines, but also in looking beyond memory altogether in order better to understand its diverse manifestations.In different contexts (theory-development, descriptive case study, interventionist manipulation, and so on) the balance shifts between pinpointing particularity and seeking pattern. It is notoriously diffi cult, as Steven Brown noted in Memory Studies 1(3), to identify 'the limits and extent of this aspect of human conduct that we are calling "memory" ' (2008: 262). Building on Brown's robust acceptance of this uncertainty, this editorial encourages the comparison of memory studies to other projects, or other domains of enquiry. Brown worked through an analogy between memory and sexuality to point to 'a set of fundamental obstacles' to the study of 'memory'. The comparison with sexuality, among its other effects, warns of the dangers of fi xing concepts, strategies and institutions too fi rmly and too fast.But are there any other domains for comparative analysis that, used for different purposes, might reveal clues and options as well as pitfalls? What is the state of memory studies in relation to the interdisciplinary study of dreaming, say, or of gesture, or emotion, or colour vision? Or, for other purposes, we might spy on the interdisciplinary study of jazz, say, or of gardens, or sport, or diagrams, or cloth, or martial arts, to ask whether and how the multiplicity within each of these domains is acknowledged and mapped in case study or in theory.The activities and phenomena in most of these domains, as in remembering, are complex and highly structured, involving at once many distinctive dimensions that specifi c analyses may try to map and tap: neural, affective, kinesthetic, sensory, material, interpersonal, historical, political, cultural, technological, and so on, where each dimension named in this truncated list is itself wildly heterogeneous. Brown argues that because instances or activities of remembering usually occur across many such dimensions at once, 'an implicit barrier is set against establishing the analytic priority of any particular aspect of the practice': he goes on to diagnose various forms of anxiety at the unbounded nature of the resulting projects (Brown, 2008: 269).