One little detail, before we begin.
This is a graphic of how the menu (on the left) should appear:
And This should look like 
.
If they don't look like that to you, it is because of your security settings, and I would never ask you to change those, so what you'll have to do is manually download and install the fonts that are used by these pages (it really does make a big difference, during the story, and fonts can't hurt your computer).
There are two fonts you need: this one, and this one.
Right click on the links, click "Save Target As...", then, once you've got them, install them (Help files will tell you how), and you're ready to go.
Now that that's done, let's get on with it:
Many things have been said about what an SGDVD Dracula story should contain; largely because Dracula is a far more serious subject than is used for most DVD stories.
Incidentally, if you have not read the first SG v. Dracula story, you might want to run through it, before continuing past this page. Scroll down to the bottom of the menu for a link to it. Old Spice readers should bear in mind, though, that that's a full-blown SGDVD story – a different (and much nastier) kind of madness than the kind they're used to. If you don't like that type of story, give it a miss – any important details are retold in the larger story.
The only thing I knew for certain about the Lord of Darkness was that nearly every story that has featured him has been uncreative hash. The vampire is almost always reduced to the status of mindless automaton, which only purpose is to suck blood and frighten people.
Ok, so I can sense a few raised eyebrows already.
Is this idiot saying that Dracula shouldn't suck blood and frighten people?
Well, yes, actually. That is precisely what I'm saying.
If those are the only attributes the author feels the character has to offer, it is better not to use the character at all. Vampires do not 'suck blood' – they feed; and they do not 'frighten people' – people are frightened of them.
If you think this is pedantry, you are very much mistaken.
A vampire's 'To Do' list would not have 'suck blood' or 'frighten people' written on it; and it would not need to, because the items that actually are on the list would be enough to give the sane nightmares.
So, what exactly am I saying here?
Well, for a start, I'm saying that a vampire can have a 'To Do' list.
...And a favourite movie, and magazine subscriptions, and a passion for hot cars, and everything else that can grow in a character.
Ok, so maybe the above examples are a little extreme, but the point remains the same: That you cannot simply say: 'Let's write a scary vampire story'.
If you include a vampire for the sole purpose of being scary, your story will probably end up being not worth the read.
Stoker himself was guilty of this, and worse. His total inability to write fight scenes and his lack of solid characterisation for Dracula led him to all but writing the vampire out of the book after the first few chapters. His book does not even have any of the lame combat scenes that were later included in the many Dracula movies; and there is no sign anywhere of the vampire's point of view. Dracula becomes a shadow, seen only a few times, and not having an active part in the story.
This is not the way I use characters, especially such fruitful ones. Hell, if I can make a bunch of pop-stars into interesting characters, then you can imagine what I can do with a vampire!
The vampire must be a full-blooded character – which is to say that he/she/it must be carefully built, and have all the loves, hates, likes, dislikes, and foibles that you would build into any character.
This can not be done clinically, because, as with any character, the writer's own feelings about him/her/it are of paramount importance. Is the character an enemy? A lover? An object of scorn?
If the only answer to that is ‘He's really scary!’, then I'm afraid the story won't cut it.
For example (leaving the 'death and destruction' aspect to one side):
My vampire is the kind of person that I know only slightly, but would rather not. I would not cross the street to avoid him, but I would wish that I could. He disturbs me. If I have to talk to him, I am tongue-tied, and cannot find anything to talk about. He is a person that I notice when he is in the corner of my eye. I am glad that he is so reclusive, as this means I will not bump into him too often. I have never been to his home, and, if invited, I would offer my excuses.
If you haven't caught my meaning yet, I give in.
So, what reasoning did I go through, in the construction of the story itself?
Should I use the original tale, and do a direct spoof?
No. That idea was rejected immediately.
The Stoker story is not notable for its plot, which is at best very poor. The entire sequence with Lucy, for example, which takes up almost half the book, is a badly-handled nonsense. What it adds to the tale could have been implemented much more effectively with a shorter sequence – worse: the whole thing makes no real sense!
Why should the villain of the piece concentrate so much of his energy on this one young girl, whilst totally ignoring her protectors/servants/friends and the rest of the population?
More: Why is the reader not told why he acts in this way? I am a strong advocate in making the reader work out the details of a story by inference, as this makes for a more enjoyable read, but before something can be inferred, it must be implied! Saying nothing at all, even through implication, and leaving the reader to make up the details for himself, is not the same thing.
That the young girl's mother dies of a heart condition at the same time as her lover's father dies of different natural causes and her best friend's husband's boss also shuffles off this mortal coil (leaving her best friend and her husband a fortune for no good reason) all smacks of bad story-telling, if not disastrous use of 'quick fixes'.
Stoker can, however, be largely forgiven all these failings, because the eponymous villain of the book is so memorable, and because of his wonderful view of human frailty.
Now there was a thread worth pulling! His heroes are not the 'pillars of strength' that Britons of the time were always displayed as. They are wilful, yes, and as heroic as every man must be expected to be, when those near and dear are threatened; but they have weaknesses, are aware of those weaknesses, and are not afraid to admit to same.
In that respect, they were more 'nineties men' than most men of the more recent nineties!
An even better description, given the similar introspective narrative style, would be that they were Old Spice men, a full century before I wrote the first chapter of that series (Dracula was first published in 1897 – Old Spice in 1998).
Who better, then, than Old Spice himself – a man who forges on with trying to enjoy life, though surrounded by insanity and weirdness, and who is well aware of his weaknesses – to confront Stoker's Lord of Darkness?
That decided, it was a case of when, in the Old Spice continuity, to insert the piece? (Even though it cannot be included as a real part of the series).
Book six, Old Spice : the Little Devils, has been fully plotted (but is not yet written), and features a vampire of name Oliverio. So, should Ol' Spicy meet with Vlad before that, or should he come up against him with the experience of fighting Oliverio already under his belt?
A parallel with the Stoker book answered that question for me.
Dracula is set largely in England, but a foreign character, who has had experience of fighting vampires (Van Helsing), becomes a main mover.
The SGDVD Dracula is set largely in the United States (for reasons that become obvious, on seeing who the mysterious 'guest star' is), and Ol' Spicy is British. So Ol' Spicy becomes the foreign, experienced vampire fighter – the Oliverio story came first. This was good for me, too, because it allowed me to portray Ol' Spicy as he will be then, rather than as he is now. He has matured into his role, and is more confident in his enhanced abilities.
Note that, if you have not read any Old Spice, you will have a lot of weirdness to catch up on. Six books' worth, in fact (and two of them are not even written, yet!) It took a lot of water under the bridge to get Ol' Spicy to the position he is in.
If you want a brief run-down, Click Here (recommended, even if you have read Old Spice). I'll repeat that link at the bottom of this page.
A simple vampire shouldn't cause Ol' Spicy too much trouble anyway, should it? After all, He's got an honest-to-goodness Demon on his side; and it's a demon's job to punish evil like Vlad's – especially given that the Grace Scorner's Infernal remit is to punish crimes against the church! And that's without even mentioning the seemingly all-powerful starship Ol' Spicy has at his disposal. Taking Dracula down should be a walk in the park!
But is it a case of Old Spice being being confronted by the horror that is Dracula, or of the Dark Lord being submerged in the intricate insanity that is Old Spice?
Don't even ask if this is an SGDVD story, an Old Spice story, or a Stoker-style study in emotion, because even I'm not sure – and I wrote the bloody thing! Everything went into the mix, and it has come out as it has come out.
The undead girls do die (not really giving much away, there. In the SGDVD world, that's the Law!)
Old Spice is...
Well, he's Ol' Spicy, isn't he? And there's plenty of Stokerian self-doubt and emotional twaddle.
So, now the question is: Is it Funny?
And the answer is: No, not really. Not in the usual SGDVD sense.
Using 'real' characters precludes the possibility of it being a purely humorous piece. There is humour in there, but it occurs only as it would in the real world. Even with dreadful and horrific things happening to them, people always find time to laugh with one other (if you are familiar with Old Spice, you will know exactly what I mean). There is also a lot of 'in' jokes, if you catch them.
The 'funny' part was when the Spice Girls Died their Violent Deaths – that is the whole point of the SGDVD site: that they die in ridiculous and horrible ways while we laugh. However, they are already dead before this story begins. It is no longer their story.
The fate of the "Spice monsters" still remains to be seen, however – but the fun is over. It is time to taste the blood.
INCIDENTALLY: If you're a hardened SGDVD fan, and the idea of a ‘serious’ SGDVD story does not appeal to you, skip straight to the epilogues. These are Not to be missed! There are no large spoilers in the epilogues, so reading them first won't ruin the story for you, should you decide to go back and read it later – and you will finally find out how it is that the Girls manage to get killed over and over (and over and over) again!
(And no dyed-in-the-wool SGDVD fan will want to miss the origin of FLAMING KATIE!)
INCIDENTALLY II: Before anyone asks: No, I do not believe in reincarnation (at least, I haven't believed in it during four of my last five lives).
INCIDENTALLY III: Just in case anyone doesn't know (and so there's no confusion, when you hit a certain point in the story): The Royal Navy pronunciation of the word 'Lieutenant' is 'Lef-TENant' (and it's been that way since long before America was invented, so lump it!)
