You seem to have shifted ground a bit, Steve, and dropped your claim of 'literalism'? Does that mean that you no longer align yourself entirely with Mike Y's disdainful and [whatever he may claim] scornfully scouting denunciatory horror at the though that there might be some sort of symbolic dimension [that suggested by Reeves or some other] involved in a possible interpretation of the song under question?

I really can't see why he is getting so heated at the thought. (In that indispensable formulation of that Dickensian lawyer, "He thinks he isn't but he is").

~M~