I've found that different people disagree on what's reconcilable and what isn't.
Agreed. In my personal continuity, I have no problems with the Kirk on Excelsio
r and Spock on Surak
comics set between ST3 and ST4, although many dismiss them as incompatable.
I find the first run of DC Comics very awkward to reconcile with the rest of Trek, I must admit. The first couple of issues had the Enterprise return to Earth immediately after the incident with Khan, and Kirk get demoted to captain, but he's suddenly an admiral again in TSFS. Then there's the character of Konom, a renegade Klingon who joins Starfleet, whereas televised canon dictates that as of the 24th century, Worf is the only Klingon to have ever served on a Federation starship.
Things only get trickier in the comics set between TSFS and TVH. For one thing, there's the fact that the Excelsior is portrayed as being huge enough for Kruge's bird-of-prey to fit inside its shuttle bay. And why was it left in there so long anyway?
I agree that there is no end of continuity nit-pickery involved, with the Bird-of-Prey thing really being probably the trickiest, but that's never been an issue for me. Most of the problems ccould be explained away with a small amount of continuity spackle and a little bit of hand-wavium. The reason I will always include them in my "personal continuity" is for what they mean to me personally
When these comics came out, there wasn't exactly the same amount of Trek out there that there is today. Nowadays, if you want to watch some Trek, all you have to do go to Netflix, and you have your choice of over 700 episodes.
Back then, you had endless re-runs of the original 79, of course, and I would record my favorite episodes like a good geek. But new adventures? New fun and suspense? More banter and heroics? The DC comics were the place to find them. The adventures of Konom, Bryce, Bearclaw, and even "Bernie" the Klingon mean as much to me as the adventures of Elias Vaughn, Mackenzie Calhoun, Diego Reyes or any other lit-original character.