Criticizing Oedipus Rex

First Critic: 

That the play is strong in character study and dramatic structure but weak in its beginning are the literary criticisms of "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles (495 B.C.E. - 405 B.C.E.). 

Specifically, a literary criticism involves a very close look at a piece of literature in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. The play is strong in its study of character. Another strength is its dramatic alternating of choral odes of entertainment and explanation with dramatic episodes of character dialogue and revelation. 

But at the same time, the play is weak in its prologue. The prologue is supposed to set the grounds for the story and to bring the chorus onto the stage quickly thereafter. Instead, it somewhat overwhelms the audience with the sheer numbers of characters on the stage. It also includes lengthy speeches by Theban Kings Creon and Oedipus, and the priest of Zeus. It therefore has the feel more of an episode than of the prologue.

Second Critic: 

The main criticism of 'Oedipus Rex' is the prologue. Its length gives it the feel and function of the longer episodes. It delays the important, first appearance of the chorus in the parados. It brings together a lot of people in a small space. So it adds an overwhelming, confusing note to the play's beginnings.

Third Critic:

Oedipus Rex is a classical Greek play about a guy fated to kill his father and marry his mother. To prevent this, his father orders him exposed at birth. The child is found and adopted. As an adult, he meets and kills his biological father without realizing who he is. Oedipus, still ignorant of his true identity, marries his mother. The moral: you can't escape your fate.

So What do you think?? Do you also agree with them??