I recently did a watch-through of the Godzilla
movies from the '90s and '00s (here's my summary blog post with links to the individual era reviews
), and in the later of the two distinct film series (the one running from 1999-2004), they deliberately set each film in a separate continuity (with one exception), reinventing the Godzilla universe and changing its backstory and core assumptions, exploring different approaches to the character and concept. I thought that was an intriguing creative exercise (though some of the individual entries were rather lame), and it was a lot of fun to see all those different variations on the same theme, all those different ways the same basic premise could be interpreted. (Plus the weird twist that essentially every one of those different realities included the original 1954 film as part of its backstory, but interpreted its events in different ways and sometimes tweaked or ignored its ending.) And I found myself wondering why some Trek fans are so opposed to the idea of multiple continuities. It seems to me that they're missing out.
Fiction is an exercise in imagination. Watching or reading Star Trek
in the first place means accepting the premise of an imaginary reality different from our own. So reading a Trek story that isn't compatible with canon or the novelverse is just more of the same -- accepting the premise of a Trek universe different from the main one. It's just stretching the imagination a little further.
Anyway, we've drifted so far into the discussion of acceptance of contradictory works that I don't think the original question was ever clearly answered. As far as I know, The Best and the Brightest
is still compatible with the novelverse.