In order to deliver the emotional truth in the story, you have to include some of the literal truth.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
All stories should have some honesty and truth in them, otherwise you're just playing about.
A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.
I think you tell the story that has to be told. You tell the story that's the truth. You tell the story that readers will be interested in and should know about.
In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.
The thing is, emotion - if it's visibly felt by the writer - will go through all the processes it takes to publish a story and still hit the reader right in the gut. But you have to really mean it.
Lastly get emotionally connected to your story so you can deliver it, you know, if you can't deliver the emotions to your script there's no point to your story. Story is the key.
The trite answer is that everything is true but none of it happened. It is emotionally true, but the events, the plotting, the narrative, isn't true of my life, though I've experienced most of the emotions experienced by the characters in the play.
We're always just telling stories, and stories are always just approximations of the truth. It's never the truth exactly.
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.
For a creative writer possession of the 'truth' is less important than emotional sincerity.