the book generally garners raves on the FB DS pages. i think a lot of fans are so desperate for any new franchise output they lap it up no matter how lousy.
I think that's very true. In the 60s and 70s the demand for quality in TV tie-ins was very low. Gold Key and Paperback Library were about state of the art. The authors hired to write novels were people in the industry who had often never seen the movie or show that was being adapted. Compare the novelization of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" by Michael Avallone with "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" by David Gerrold. The latter is obviously written by someone who cares about the material. Even as a kid I could tell it was superior because he got into the heads of the characters and filled in gaps in the plot of the movie. Avallone obviously did not treat as more than a mechanical, rote retelling of the script.
Bantam books put out some pretty horrible Star Trek novels. Many of them were obviously original novels an author could not get published, so he adapted it to the Trek format. Later, Bantam hired Star Trek fans as their authors and quality sometimes improved.
Fans of most genres would not accept a book that does not fit the series continuity and format. Star Trek and Doctor Who novels had better not violate canon or there will be hell to pay. Star Wars has an extended universe and fans are incensed because Disney is ignoring it. I can't keep up with the output of those franchises.
I would compare the books in the "Shatnerverse" to Lara Parker's novels. I stopped buying William Shatner's books about the resurrected Captain Kirk because they played fast and loose with the Star Trek universe. I don't have the luxury of being able to be choosy with DS whereas in Trek I don't bother trying to keep up. I'm very selective about what I read.