Editing Ruddigore (section)

===Critical reception===
On the day of the premiere, ''[[The New York Times]]'', whose correspondent attended the dress rehearsal the day before, warned, "The music is not up to the standard of Sir Arthur Sullivan.  As a whole it is largely commonplace ... Gilbert's dialogue in the first act is here and there very amusing, but in the second it is slow and tedious."<ref>[https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1887/01/22/104007360.pdf ''New York Times'' preview]</ref> The press generally agreed with the Savoy audience that the second act of the premiere was inferior to the first.  ''[[The Times]]'' opined that "the fun which runs alive in the first act runs completely dry in the second, which is long and tedious, and winds up with an anti-climax of inanity."<ref name=thetimes>''The Times'', 24 January 1887, p. 4</ref> ''The Times'' praised both the libretto and the music of the first act ("Everything sparkles with the flashes of Mr. Gilbert's wit and the graces of Sir Arthur Sullivan's melodiousness... one is almost at a loss what to select for quotation from an embarrassment of humorous riches.") but rated the score, as a whole, "of a fair average kind, being not equal to ''[[The Sorcerer]]'' but certainly superior to ''Princess Ida''."<ref name=thetimes/> ''[[Punch (magazine)|Punch]]'' also thought the second act weak:  "The idea of the burlesque is funny to begin with, but not to go on with".<ref>''Punch'', 29 January 1887, p. 34</ref> The ''[[Pall Mall Gazette]]'' thought the libretto "as witty and fanciful as any of the series" though "the second half of the last act dragged a little."<ref name=pall>''The Pall Mall Gazette'', 24 January 1887, pp. 3 and 4</ref>  ''The New York Times'' reported, "the second (act) fell flat from the beginning and was a gloomy and tedious failure."<ref name=Times/> According to the ''St. James's Gazette'', "gradually the enthusiasm faded away and the interest of the story began to flag, until at last the plot seemed within an ace of collapsing altogether."

[[File:BondBarrRud.jpg|thumb|left|250px|[[Jessie Bond|Bond]] and [[Rutland Barrington|Barrington]]: Margaret discloses one of her "odd thoughts" to Despard.]]

''[[The Era (newspaper)|The Era]]'' commented, "the libretto as a whole is very weak and loosely constructed."<ref name=era>''The Era'', 29 January 1887, p. 14</ref> ''[[Fun (magazine)|Fun]]'' asked, "Could it be possible that we were to have a dull play from the cleverest and most original humorist of the day? Alas! It could – it was."<ref name=fun>''Fun'', 2 February 1887, p. 44</ref> According to the ''Pall Mall Budget'', "the players seemed to be nervous from the start.  Miss Braham forgot her lines, and was not in voice.  Mr. (George) Grossmith was in the same plight".  ''The Times'' also criticised Braham, stating that she "acted most charmingly, but sang persistently out of tune".  The staging was also criticised: ''The Times'' stated, "The ghost scene ... of which preliminary notices and hints of the initiated had led one to expect much, was a very tame affair."<ref name=thetimes/>  ''The Era'' thought Sullivan's score "far from being fresh and spontaneous as is his wont".<ref name=era/>

Not all newspapers were adversely critical.  ''The Sunday Express''<!-- not the modern Sunday Express – no link --> headlined its review "Another Brilliant Success".  ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' agreed and stated that the work was "received with every demonstration of delight by a distinguished and representative audience."  ''[[The Observer]]'' also praised the piece, though allowing that it "lacks something of the sustained brilliance" of ''The Mikado''.<ref>''The Observer'', 23 January 1886, p. 12</ref>  ''The Daily News'' applauded the innovation of Sullivan (who conducted, as usual, on the first night), of conducting with a baton tipped with a small incandescent light.<ref name=p27374/> Scholar Reginald Allen suggested that the reviews in the Sunday papers may have been better than the others because their critics, facing deadlines (the premiere was on Saturday night, and finished late because of the long interval), may not have stayed to the end.<ref name=Allen276/>  ''Fun'', having disparaged the libretto, said of the music, "Sir Arthur has surpassed himself".<ref name=fun/>  ''The Pall Mall Gazette'' praised the "charming melodies, fresh and delightful as ever"; ''The Daily News'' wrote that "Mr Gilbert retains in all its fulness his unique facility for humorous satire and whimsical topsy-turveydom" and praised Sullivan's "melodic genius which never fails".<ref name=pall/>  ''Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper'' said, "Sir Arthur Sullivan must be congratulated."<ref>''Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper'', 30 January 1887, p. 6</ref>