In “Odysseus’ Scar,” Erich Auberach contrasts two diametrically opposed narrative styles - as found in the Homeric and Old Testament epics - insofar as they pertain to realism. He argues that Homeric epics are rich in detail while Biblical epics are vague and open to interpretation. There are distinct differences regarding how realism is expressed in Homeric and Biblical epics. Moreover, he articulates that the contrasting narrative styles - as they pertain to realism - exist for different reasons and the varying motives of their authors.
	Auberach asserts that in the narration of his epics Homer leaves nothing unexplained. An example is Odysseus’ scar, and the ensuing digression that Homer includes to explain it after it is noticed by Euryclea. While stories like The Odyssey were purported to have been based on historical events, their historicity is not the chief concern of the author. Homer’s main objective was to enchant the reader by having all details laid out and described in full. To this end “Homeric style knows only a foreground, only a uniformly illuminated, uniformly objective present.” (Auberach 6). Auberach further comments that “To write history is so difficult that most historians are forced to make concessions to the technique of legend.” (Auberach 20). Everything in Homeric epics takes place in the foreground and readers of Homer’s works would not have been overly concerned with the historicity of the epics, because the richness and realism of the stories made them enjoyable enough - and real enough - in the moment.
In contrast, Auberach argues that people and events in Biblical epics were stressed as being historical facts not to be questioned. Where realism is concerned the narratives are necessarily vague and open to interpretation. Characters in Biblical epics exist “to serve the end which God has commanded; what in other respects they were, are, or will be, remains in darkness.” (Auberach 9). Biblical epics do not contain well-developed character description/expression because the chief concern of these stories is to promote the dogmas of scripture. Auberach contends that “The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please and enchant us – they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.” (Auberach 15). Characters in Biblical epics exist only as catalysts with which the author, “the Elohist,” promotes dogma. As such, styles of narration which are employed are meant not to entertain but to convey messages to be interpreted by religious authorities.
	Auberach’s “Odysseus’ Scar” examines realism in Homeric and Biblical epics through a comparison of direct discourse and narrative styles. Auberach posits that while these epics are supposed to communicate historical characters and events, Homeric epics are more concerned with imparting historical events through entertaining and enchanting narration and are rich in detail with no interpretation possible or required. On the other hand, he concludes that Biblical epics do not enchant the audience with richness and detail, but were written in a way that leaves them open to interpretation.