You can't have it both ways - either the Bible is literal or its not. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to take literally and which parts you want to interpret.
I am NOT a literalist - but most Fundamentalists are (except when it comes to a verse they don't like).
That's just silly.
Well, I think to a large extent (not in every case, but probably in most) your assertion of inconsistency is unfairly contrived.
No serious person who knows what a metaphor is would doubt that the bible uses metaphor, and the same for figures of speech. In that sense, I have never personally encountered a “literalist.”
The actual question, which both of us, unfortunately, must misportray due to constraints of language, is if concrete assertions—whether phrased directly or metaphorically—should be superceded by holistic analysis.
As an example, everyone, “literalist” or otherwise, will agree that Jesus’ reference to “sheep” means His followers, and not some woolly quadrapeds He happened to own; but a “literalist” will say that, when Jesus talks about it being better to cut off your hand than allow it to cause you to sin, that this is really true, whereas someone given to intepretation might suggest that that was merely an instance of hyperbole.
In essense, your complaint is probably based in a form of the equivocation fallacy. Taking a literal interpretation of the bible does not preclude the acknowledging of metaphors/parables/etc., and you should not accuse “literalists” of hyprocrisy for doing so; a literal interpretation simply means taking a direct, “Occam’s razor” approach to deciphering the text.