The first substantial review of a work has an influence out of proportion to its individual merit. It supplies the terms that everything written afterwards has to engage with.
Criticism is written into an existing conversation
Reviewers read each other, and any critic writing on day three has read what appeared on day one.
Even a reviewer who disagrees is now arguing against a stated position, which means addressing the terms that position established.
The first piece therefore sets the questions, and later pieces answer them. Setting the questions is the more powerful act, and it happens before anyone has decided whether the first review was any good.
Comparisons harden almost immediately
Early reviews reach for reference points to describe something unfamiliar, and a comparison that captures a work reasonably well spreads quickly.
Once established, the comparison becomes the standard shorthand and is repeated by writers who arrived at it second-hand.
It can be inaccurate and still persist, because it is doing the useful work of making an unfamiliar thing describable.
Aggregation compounds the effect
Where scores are collected and averaged, early entries establish a range that later ones cluster around.
Reviewers can see the emerging average, and a substantially different score requires a writer to be confident that everyone else is wrong.
Most scores therefore fall within a narrow band, and the band was set by the first few published. Outliers exist and are treated as provocations rather than as ordinary disagreements.
Publication order is not a measure of quality
Who publishes first is determined by access, staffing and time zones. The earliest outlet is the one that received material early and had someone free to write.
None of those factors relate to judgement, so the framing influence lands more or less arbitrarily.
Publishers understand this and manage early access accordingly, which is why the first reviews are so often placed with outlets expected to be receptive.
Reappraisal takes years and rarely arrives
A reputation formed in the first week is repeated in previews, retrospectives and recommendations for as long as anyone writes about the work.
Genuine reconsideration requires a writer to argue against an established position, which demands more effort than agreeing with it and reaches fewer readers.
Works that were badly framed on release are usually rescued by audiences over a long period rather than by critics revisiting them. Recovery happens through repeated private recommendation, which is slow and leaves no published trace until it is complete.