Looking back at the twelve- or thirteen-part series as a whole, I find:
* Two reviews of Christian theology (Just Thomism, Glory to God for All Things)This is actually not a bad rough sketch of my general interests, in something approaching realistic (if not very fine-grained) proportion.
* Two reviews of literary criticism and poetics (Isola di Rifiuti, Poems and Poetics).
* Two reviews of socio-political history and current events, one respectably mainstream, one fringey (Duck of Minerva, Disinformation)
* Two reviews of philosophy (Meaningness and Noir Realism), one of which concentrates on (and contests) Buddhist themes.
* One review of Jewish thought (The Talmud Blog).
* One review of music (Rate Your Music)
* One review of cuisine (Smitten Kitchen)
* One attempted review of Occultism (Light of a Golden Day, but you're out of luck on that one -- the site's gone)
* One review of general smart-person topical writing about things that interest him (Slate Star Codex)
A lot got left out. A more fine-tuned self-portrait would include more more scholarship -- classical, medieval, modern. Also Anthropology ("hard" and "soft"), contemporary science from neurobiology to cosmology and physics, and mathematics, which I read as the interested layperson I am. But of course mostly what was left out was more philosophy, both "Western" and non-. To remind anyone who may care, the original notion was to mention blogs I had not already mentioned in other connections. This automatically excluded a scad or more (how much is a scad?) of philosophy blogs, and I'm not sure I didn't cheat a little when I snuck in Noir Realism.
The series kept me writing and posting, but it was also a little distracting, and I'm not sure whether I'll attempt anything similar next year. But I do find it interesting, in retrospect, to see that someone could get a fairly good idea of my concerns and interests just from the list of what's included in this series, and yet wouldn't have a clue (well, OK, maybe a clue) about what I actually thought. What they'd mostly know is a rough idea of where I thought the interesting issues were; but not my own poor attempts at the answers. There's a reason for that. It's the same reason Plato mentions in the Seventh Letter.
Mandelstam did not say, "It suffices to recount the blogs he has read, and his biography is complete." It is interesting to think about why this would completely deform what he meant.