How do you think the effect of oral communication in societies played a part in the history of theater, dramas, and performance pieces?

Reading about the Purim celebrations made me wonder why, if people basically had  freedom to perform a show about anything they wanted, so many of them chose to perform shows about robbers, masters of the house, and law enforcement?

Being that telling stories about ourselves, our communities, and our place in the world allowed an entirely new way of understanding and representing reality. How can written communication affect the way in which these stories are told, can it be just as effective as oral communication, and be understood in the way it’s meant to represent reality? It’s possible that a story may lose an important aspect and  made clearly through oral communication.

If listeners of oral performances in primary oral cultures did not listen to understand the messages being spoken (TH, 18), why are there fundamental moral lessons in epic works like Gilgamesh, whose origins are in primarily oral cultures?

In the “Contraband,” how come they chose the same cast for each year for the performance? Instead of using the same people, they could’ve held auditions for other men, especially if they were in need of the money.

Why does the oral tradition cement itself so well into the minds of those being told the story? Is the “telephone” like nature of oral storytelling a boon to the medium or a potential detriment? Both, perhaps?

Why did many of the early bands, tribes, and/or states desire to adapt oral tales into performances of music and dance?

Why were the actors traditionally boys or unmarried men? Instead of dressing up young boys as female roles, why not simply hire girls or women? Is it possible that religion had something to do with it?

In the article “Contraband:”Performance, Text and Analysis of a ”Purim-Shpil”, according to Shatzky notes, texts were preserved in the memories of the actors in 1825 or 1826. So, no one needed to know entire script. Do you think that performing with script is necessary for topicality even without script actors depended on each other improvised, to reconstruct a full play from the parts they had that showed different performing every time to audience?