Right off the bat, I'm going to remind you of what I said earlier in that same post:
What you're hitting on here, in other words, is the fact that there is no objective standard to measure whether or not a given novel matches up to your idea of what kinds of paradigms a STAR TREK novel should feature. There are novels that could be argued to fit one which someone else might argue fits the other, and which someone else might argue fits a third. That is, in fact, part of what makes your complaint hard to satisfy -- there's no real definition of what you're looking for.
Having said that, I'll now defend my reasons for placing each entry into the "Familiar Paradigm" category.
This is one of the entries that I considered to fit both categories. The TOS entry and the VOY entry are both set during their respective series; on the other hand, it also contained entries from NF, a novel-original series in CHALLENGER, and from the DS9 Relaunch. As a result, I concluded that it fit both categories.
I am absolutely baffled by your objection to this one being placed in the "Familiar Paradigm" category. How can a novel that literally does nothing but re-tell a canonical story possibly not fit into the "Familiar Paradigm" category? It's a novel set during the canonical era, featuring the canonical characters, doing canonical things. Doing the same things we saw in the film. As a novelization, it is literally the least original and innovative type of STAR TREK novel that could possibly be written.
I stand by this assessment as well. They feature the characters from ST09, are set between scenes of the film, puts them in a setting seen in ST09, and tells new stories that can't shake up the status quo too much by virtue of their being set between scenes in the film. In terms of whether or not they should be considered "Familiar Paradigm" novels, I don't see how the ST09 STARFLEET ACADEMY novels are any different than any given TNG novel set during the series.
Yes, but you didn't claim that your objection was that the preponderance of "Familiar Paradigm" novels were TOS, you claimed that "TOS is the only series that is still using the original crew/ship" (a factually inaccurate claim). You are, once again, moving your goalposts.
Okay, but now you how to define what constitutes "recent?" The publishing world works on a very long schedule, and there are only 12 novels published a year. That's why I included ten years' worth -- because I do not think even five years' worth of trends gives us a large enough sample size to be statistically meaningful.
And, again, we also hit the question of subjective definitions. DS9: THE NEVER-ENDING SACRIFICE was published just two years ago, was mostly set during the series, and focused on characters from the TV series. Yet it was set on Cardassia, following the life of Rugal, the orphan sent back to Cardassia in DS9 season two's "Cardassians," as the events of DS9 the series unfolded around him. Does it qualify? STAR TREK: TEROK NOR was set during the Bajoran Occupation and focused on canonical characters, and the Occupation was an era we'd seen numerous times in flashbacks throughout DS9's run; does that qualify?
Nor have you explained why it's okay to ignore a reprint of a book that's been out of print for two decades (TNG: NIGHTSHADE). Surely its impact on the reading public will be the same as one that is completely new? Especially since you yourself said that novels that are a bit older might as well not exist for new readers. Well, if this one is reprinted with a new cover, then it might as well be new for those new readers.
This is the problem with your complaint: It lacks definition, it's highly subjective, and it's short-sighted by only focusing on the last few years.
