The main difference would be this is largely a biography and Yoshikawa's novel is ... well, a fictional work based on research and legends/rumors of the man. I think my post above described pretty well what the biography offered - a historically accurate portrayal.Sparnage said:How does it differ from Yoshikawa's Musashi? More realistic I'm guessing for one.
That's certainly the highest road to take in these instances, but the guy almost seems apologetic when he strikes onto a good pointGriffith No More! said:It's refreshingly objective as well ... while he expresses which accounts and theories make most sense to him, he never pushes it so hard that it becomes unreasonable, and you're free to disagree with his point of view or simply take a wider stance.
Sparnage said:I think I would appreciate this more than Yoshikawa's version. From what I read about him on wiki and such they don't have much to go by about him, so I presume much of it would still have to be speculation.