A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
There's something uniquely exhilarating about puzzling together the truth at the hands of an unreliable narrator.
People love a good story, even if it's a story that has very little truth to it.
The truth is always less interesting than the fiction.
Truth may be stranger than fiction on a plot and narrative basis, but fiction can investigate tone in a way that things based on a true story can't.
This is a cliche, but in fiction, I feel it is easier for me to get to some sort of truth, some kind of more honest writing.
The stories I write are often literal to events that have happened or observations that I've made, and sometimes they're fantastical.
An autobiography can distort; facts can be realigned. But fiction never lies: it reveals the writer totally.
When you're telling stories, you are actually trying to illuminate some portion of the truth in an artful way. The story may immediately seem to be a lie, but it's like an impressionistic painting - you see the light and the color better than you would with a photo-realistic piece.
Truth is quite constricting, in a way. You endlessly see at the start of a film 'This is a true story'.
In order to deliver the emotional truth in the story, you have to include some of the literal truth.