You should also read, "How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?" by Colin Radford, and the literature that developed in response to it.
My answer to this is a firm "Yes". Novels, for example, "tell the
truth" better than any other written material, with the exception
things like diaries and letters, unless you think of the relevant
passages of diaries and letters as though they were mini-novels. But
diaries and letters are no better at telling the truth in the
appropriate sense than the skills of their authors. What sense is the
sense in which novels (or more generally imaginative writing) can "tell
the truth" better than any other "Areas of Knowledge", as you call
them? (I imagine that you might have the sciences in mind.) The sense
is one in which telling the truth has to do with getting the details of
a description absolutely right, and getting the overal balance and
colour and mood of what one is describing absolutely right. Here
psychology for example (which might be thought to give "tell the truth"
better than the novel) is no better than the sensibility (the
eighteenth and nineteenth century word) of the individual working
psychologist. And psychology as a whole can be worse, because its
collective or institutional scientific structure blots out the most
personal and individual aspects of its subjects' lives. 'What an
intelligent man knows is hard to know', as Goethe observed. But I agree
with Kalynne Pudner that there is a rich and rewarding philosophical
literature that exists exactly on this topic. My philosophical guides in
the area, who share the view I have sketched above, are Iris
Murdoch and Vladimir Nabokov.