Tokugawa Ieyasu purpose of the article was to explain the historical aspects of the actual "Taiko" himself and not the character of the Taiko in Eiji Yoshikawa's novel. The article is effective since it only relies on facts and history rather than a personal opinion or argument. The main focus for the audience who have already read Taiko is the realism and accuracy Yoshikawa portrayed in his novel. Such instances as, "the emperor being unable to grant such a title to someone of Hideyoshi's lowly lineage" and "being unable to become an adopted son for not being a shogun" are familiar events that were included in Taiko. There is no evidence that particularly helps or hinders Ieyasu's case since there is no argument, it is purely informational. That being said, there are some key points about the Taiko that are interesting to readers that were not included in the novel, such as, "Hideyoshi unwisely attempted to invade Korea again in the Battle of Keicho. This time the Japanese encountered a well-prepared joint defence of Korea and China. The result was a stalemate". Similarly to Yoshikawa's Musashi, Yoshikawa conveniently leaves out points which has certain effects that he feels unnecessary for the sake o storytelling. The article also goes on to explain certain details of the aftermath of the war and how Hideyoshi died and his son, Hideyori, became his successor. Ieyasu goes on to say the overall effect Hideyoshi had on Japan after his death , "during the Sengoku period, it became common for peasants to become warriors, or even for samurai to farm due to the constant uncertainty of no centralized government".

Branislav L. Slantchev's purpose of discussing Eiji Yoshikawa's, Taiko, is to relate this work to Yoshikawa's more popular title, Musashi, and to also show the few faults Yoshikawa has made in his writing. Slantchev's opinion is that since so few people know of Yoshikawa, those who are familiar will become enthralled and find his work flawless. Slantchev is one of the few to finally go against the majority critical opinion and voice his personal issues with Yoshikawa. The article begins with a general summary of Taiko with an explanation of the tale as one that is about bringing "prosperity to the ravaged land is an inspiring, if bloody, tale of courage, imagination, and political intrigue." This statement already sets up the beginning with the multiple literary similarities between Taiko and Musashi. The article even discusses the "historical reality" still being "fictionalized." Nevertheless, Slantchev still continues to praise Yoshikawa when speaking of the engaging narrative and attention to battles until he reaches the character development. Slantchev argues, "Hideyoshi is so likable, he appears terribly one-dimensional." This statement is supported by the fact that even though the main character, Hideyoshi, has a "monkey face" he is still able to have success when it comes to the opposite sex. Slantchev recommends many other novels that would actually contain a more balanced point of view. Ultimately, Slantchev still ties his argument back to how Yoshikawa is still a stunning author that has the ability to write a complex mixture of "loyalty, honor, calculation, and greed that is bound to baffle the foreigner." There is a perfect consistency of admiration as well as points of dissatisfaction within the article. Thorough evidence is provided for all of the arguments made. Slantchev does appear to possess a slight bias in writing his article, as he occasionally slants his writing in comparing Taiko to Musashi almost too often. Al

Literary analyst Sumangali Morhall argues that author Eiji Yoshikawa humanizes the man Miyamoto Musashi rather than the ledgend, Musashi. In her analysis, she states, "This is ostensibly a book of swordsmanship, and includes its share of martial combat, but that element is neither gratuitous nor glamourised - it serves to support rather than blemish the story's purpose" (Morhall). Overall, Morhall delivers her argument in a descriptive manner, elaborating on the logos of the novel along with her personal opinion and perception of the novel. Her evidence is fluid and does not contradict itself whatsoever. Morhall originally states that Yoshikawa turns the legend of Musashi into the man, Musashi, and continues to support her statement while describing the accomplishments of Yoshikawa, both poetically and historically. The information provided is nothing out of the ordinary from what the majority of critical analysts agree over Yoshikawa's writings. Yoshikawa is praised for his historical accuracy on martial arts and culture included in Musashi. Morhall concludes her article praising Yoshikawa, but also explaining that the reader will get more "gracefulness" than "grisly." This statement would be hard to argue with seeing that Yoshikawa does somewhat glamorize the life of a swordsman, not necessarily in unrealistic terms, but in how Yoshikawa chooses to craft his syntax in his story as seen in this passage from the chapter entitled Art of War: "While he felt pity for this obstinate tenacity characteristic of orphans, he was aware of a void deep within their stubborn hearts. They seemed to him doomed to yearn desperately for that which they could not have, for the parental love with which they were never blessed" (Yoshikawa, 63). The only implicit bias that may be discovered within this analysis would be that Morhall does not indicate any faults present within Yoshikawa's Musashi. Morhall even goes as far to say that Yoshikawa is a "master," whi