I know, it just doesn't strike me as fair to consider Owen's poetry a completely fair and unbiased account of the soldier's life in WWI. There were many soldier poets in WWI and by no means all of them expressed that same idea. For the very opposite of the end to Owe, Rupert Brooke's The Soldier springs to mind. As Owen and Brooke were both British soldiers who fought and died in the war, I don't think you can say that Owen's poem represents 'reality' and Brooke's does not. They both, as well as other war poets, wrote down how they perceived the war. I certainly would not like to straitjacket 'reality' to any one of those two visions.
Is war glorious? Is war horrible? I don't know, but the people who have fought in wars - in other words, the people who ought to know - have said both at different times. Seems to me that the matter is quite a subjective one. Wilfred Owen certainly gives the anti-war view very eloquently, but since when was beauty truth?
As for Homer... he's all right, I guess, but never really got to me. The likes of Chaucer had a certain wit to them, but in Homer's case, while he is telling a good story, I think the language leaves something to be desired. Maybe it's something to do with the oral tradition Homer was operating in, lacking writing - hence the quite repetitive nature of a lot of his works. I have no doubt the Iliad and the Odyssey were brilliant for the audience Homer was writing for, but for the audience of me, something doesn't click.