[PancakeBrah]

Broadly,

you have a real problem with expositional dialogue in this piece, and I would assume in most similar pieces you write. Billy is a complete non-entity used to propel your next piece of interested (not interesting) writing. An absolute nothing, like a bad use of audience stand in. An audience stand in that comes to an unwritten play asking the playwrite to create broad templates spontaneously. Your broad allusions, such as Vlad, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc. don't work. You're using these touchstones of the subject and trying to subvert them with a conversational tone but for me it doesn't land. Maybe because the subversion is so obviously the point? Like, he isn't named Vlad until about a third through the piece. Crazy cool, its Vlad. Wow. Then the Hollywood line, which you didn't earn, trying to go meta within a subversion when you didnt get to covering first base. Losing my train of thought. Exposition, as the main crux. So the whole creativity of the piece is supposed to be an interview with the vampire. Which has never been done in media before. Ever. And you're trying to land this broad fucking 0 of an end point, without doing anything interesting. It reads like a parable written 2000 years too late. If the message isn't spectacular then spice it the fuck up with writing.

Specifically,

the dashes to emphasize rhyming are groan inducing. This comes to a larger issue I have with your writing; trust the fucking reader. We dont need a special font, centering, goddamn overused ellipses, centering, or CHANGING THE SKIN COLOR OF A WEBSITE to get your tone. And if we do then you failed. Because if you need all that to generate a tone then go into graphic design or a time machine back to 2005. Its insulting. God damn those fucking ellipses bro. Drop them after curious and perhaps and it reads a thousand times better. Dont try to make me interested by trying to make your interviewer interested.

I like the spaghetti line. The use of cunt was solid.