Robert Comsol wrote:
From a writer's point of view "everything about it is subject to revision or reinterpretation" could be a convenient excuse for not doing accurate research which, IMHO, is the cause of many contradictions in the fictional universe of Star Trek and to a much lesser degree because of changed premises of the original producers / creators.
"Accurate research?" You're talking about it as though this were real history. Like I said, even if you know the "facts" of a work of fiction, you're still allowed to change them if it serves your purposes, because they're not real in the first place.
I'm a damn good researcher, for your information. If you'd read my Trek novels, you'd see how many incredibly obscure bits of Trek trivia I'm able to unearth, incorporate, and reconcile in my novels. But I'm also rational enough to know the difference between fact and fiction. The latter allows poetic license. It's ignorant and insulting to assume that every continuity variation is the result of sloppiness or carelessness. Sometimes you know all the details but recognize that some of them just didn't work very well
, and since it is a work of fiction you can make a conscious choice to reinterpret or disregard them.
After all, you learn from experience. Hopefully your later works will be better than your earlier ones, and you'll have a better sense of what works and what doesn't. So being too slavishly faithful to the details of your early work can be self-defeating.
Of course I'm not saying you should be careless. Continuity is worthwhile. But it's not an end in itself, just a means to the end of telling a good story. So if telling a better story means ignoring or retconning something you did earlier, then you'd be a damn fool not to do it.