The tragedy of Sophocles's Oedipus the King is problematic because Sophocles did not provide a clear way to judge the actions of Oedipus. Sophocles in the play presented a conventional truth in which Oedipus like a detective sought out Laius' murderer. Within the play also exists another truth that is different from conventional truth. Conventional truth is obtained by collection and analysis of evidence, usually by someone who did not commit the crime. Conventional truth attempts to piece together the sequence of events. The other truth presented in the play is the truth that is possessed only by the criminal. Only the criminal would know the full details of the crime and why the crime was committed rather than avoided. Oedipus is the criminal that possesses the unique truth about his crimes because he did not attempt to avoid his own fate. Initially, it was logically inferred that Oedipus is an innocent man, who has suffered the cruelty of the Greek god Apollo. The innocence of Oedipus would be uncontested if there was no evidence that would suggest that Oedipus did not really attempt to avoid his own fate.
             Oedipus could have avoided his own fate by not leaving Corinth. Oedipus was told that he was not the son of King Polybos of Corinth even though he had known Polybos as his father all his life ( lines 908-909). Oedipus had to have believed that Polybos was not his true father otherwise he would not have approached Polybos and questioned his true lineage (lines 911-914). He also would never have left Corinth to seek the truth from the Pythian oracle (line
             917). He was told by the oracle that he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother ( lines 923-926). It would make sense that Oedipus, to avoid his fate, leave Corinth immediately. However, Oedipus completely doubted his relation to Polybos in the first place that is why he visited the oracle. Oedipus wanted the oracle to tell him who
             ...