It seems to me that much of what the church has said about the fall of Satan over the years is based on figurative (specifically: anagogic) interpretation of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 24 rather than literal interpretation.
Indeed, if we were to restrict ourselves to literal interpretation there would not be much we could say about Satan’s fall at all. As, at face value, these verses are not about Satan, but rather, the Kings of Tyre and Babylon.
How ironic then, that it’s self identified “literalists” who are most committed to the figurative sense of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 24, and visa versa.
Curious Christian 
I’ve generally found it mildly interesting to see which verses various Christians took literally and which they took figuratively. The most memorable experience was watching an ongoing argument between a preterist and someone who was a pre-millennial dispensationalist. The argument seemed to center on the facts that the preterist interpreted certain verses very literally and the pre-millennial dispensationalist interpreted certain other verses equally literally. Naturally, they both offered more figurative interpretations to their opponent’s chosen verses.
LikeLike