I don't think literal interpretation excludes the acknowledgment of literary devices. I actually appreciate their attempt in terms of a literal interpretation.
The opposite side is Covenant theology which relies heavily on theory (eg., God's command to Adam constituting a covenant, the covenant of works).
I believe neither adequate as an overview of salvation history or God's interaction with mankind.
There is so much arbitrariness in employment of literalism. Literalism is simply invoked to advance a previously held belief and dropped at the slightest hint of interpretive difficulty.
What I'm saying is there are no rules of employing literalism in dispensationalism; you have to accept some parts as being literal or symbolic unquestioningly.
I too belong to neither camp, and nor do I pretend to. I may not have a cogent eschatology to lean back on but I sure can pick out nonsense in any system. In my estimation, the errors and assumptions of Dispensationalism are one too many to be ignored. Ezekiel's temple was the tipping point
It's a wonderful thing to know that men women and children are about to suffer and die horrible deaths....sorry. Solomon was right about one thing....wisdom brings sorrow. The ignorant are the happiest and this forum is packed with some really happy people.
True, everyone has a different take on things. I happen to favor British Israelism but the doctrine has many differing adherents with opposing concepts.