In a perverse sort of way, "Observer" makes a point in questioning my believing Steinbeck and in this:

I dare say with a fair degree of certainty that "folk history" in both song and story in some instances will be based on fact, on myth and coloured by political thinking and leanings. There will also be a marked difference depending upon when the song was written in relation to the subject being written about. Folk history would therefore be best taken with a very large pinch of salt and should never outweigh studied historical work.

I think that "folk history" and and other fiction have a high level of accuracy, although that accuracy is different from that found in historical research. Although a novelist may be writing fiction, that fiction must be truthful. People can't relate to fiction unless it tells the truth about life experience. Steinbeck may have used fictional characters and fictional stories, but he presented a very real and accurate and credible picture of agricultural life in California. I've lived in Steinbeck Country for most of the time since 1973, and I can tell you that he's telling the truth.

As for creosote, I think it's unimportant to know exactly what substance was mixed with the dumped produce. I've known of fuel oil and lime, but creosote would do the job just as well - so I don't really care whether it's fuel oil, lime, or creosote. No doubt that took black market money away from poor farm workers, so no doubt they resented that. But I can see why dumped produce would be made inedible if there's a pilferage problem, so I don't make a judgment against the practice.

I suppose one could debate where there's starvation or famine in the U.S., but it's clear that undernourishment is common.

As for "folk history" - it may lack accuracy in some details and it may be fictional, but it still can do a good job of portraying the realities and attitudes of the times it stems from.

Fiction is often more truthful than fact.

-Joe-