Yes. If I read a Trek book, and then a later movie or episode contradicts the story I've read (or has contradicted the book before I've read it) the story is ruined for me. That's why I found it hard to take the fiction seriously when the shows were still running. It's just the way my brain works.
Sorry, I just find that strange. By the same token, shouldn't all of Star Trek
be "ruined" for you because it contradicts real life? I mean, the Eugenics Wars never happened in the 1990s. There was no book called Chicago Mobs of the Twenties
published in 1992. There's no Earth-Saturn probe commanded by Shaun Geoffrey Christopher slated to arrive at Saturn this year. There are no DY-class sleeper ships shuttling between Earth and Mars. And on a more fundamental level, physics and biology simply do not work the way they're portrayed in Trek. If contradictions ruin a story for you, then you should've given up on all of Trek by now. Conversely, if you're able to keep enjoying it as a work of fiction despite its irreconcilable contradictions with the world you actually live in
, then why can't you enjoy a work of Trek fiction that's inconsistent with another work of Trek fiction? Why can't you just treat it as an imaginary tale to be enjoyed rather than a work of "history" that has to get the "facts" right?