"Quick correction to "dancin short" above: NO, Hunter S. Thompson DID NOT ask, "Are we human or are we dancer?". I guess I was unclear: Mr. Thompson made a critical REMARK at some point about America raising a generation of "dancers." The Killers are the ones using the remark and putting the IDEA of it in a song lyric. Please don't misquote me misquoting a literary giant... It makes me feel a little ill and as though I was not careful enough."

"I take back everything except the part about the drug use. It's just "dancer". Damn. I hate being wrong!"

"Okay, I have a burning fascination for language, etymology, and historical accuracy. Let me parse these "dancer", "dancers", "denser" words.

First, if Flowers is specifically referring to a comment by Hunter S. Thompson's disparaging remark about America raising a generation of dancers, then I am afraid "denser" MUST be thrown out the door. A postmodern literary critic will tell you that you can interpret whatever brings you a sense of meaning, and if you prefer to interpret "denser" then by all means do so. But there is no basis on which you can claim that interpretation is "correct" in any larger sense IF THE SONGWRITER ACTUALLY SAID OTHERWISE! Can we put that to rest?? Whatever it actually, really, really is, it is NOT, CANNOT BE "denser" because Hunter S. Thompson wasn't referring to America raising a generation of "densers". You can make up whatever kind of story you want to about why he could have said that, but let's face it, you'd be stretching yourself too far. Occam's razor necessitates a meaning of "dance", not "dense", in this context.

NOW... The really interesting part begins. If we set aside all discussion of "denser" (which, if the songwriter HAD meant it, could have been very, very interesting in its own right, but he didn't and apparently he actually said so, so PLEASE let's moveon.org) we have the issue of "dancer" vs. "dancers."

This is the crux, and it is a linguistic curlicue. Songwriters are usually very careful in their choice of words because unlike prose writers, songwriters are constrained by concision, and more by concision than by consistency or accuracy. The only word we have in the song that we can compare phonetically with "dancer/s" is the corresponding word "answer." Unfortunately, a final "s" in English is frequently an easy sound both to drop or to add at the end of a sentence without being particularly noticed. When I heard this song, I heard "answerS", not "answer"! And that rhymed perfectly with "dancerS", and everything made nice sense.

Counterargument: he's only asking one question, how can he be looking for more than one answer? The question is an either/ or kind of question as it is phrased, so this argues for "answer", singular. But the question being asked is more complex than that (though here Occam's razor starts to work against me): multiple pieces of information might be necessary before the "answer" can be given, and especially if you are on your knees looking for them (the pieces must be difficult to find if you have to get down on your knees to look). Each piece can be considered an answer, and therefore "answers" becomes a plausible alternative to "answer", making "dancers" more likely than "dancer."

But more than this, the question, "Are we human or are we dancer?" is linguistically poor. "Human" in this sense is an adjective; "dancer" is a noun. If we allow that the songwriter isn't trying to be too too clever, such a pairing is awkward. "Are we humans" matches well with "are we dancers", but no one here is arguing or believes that he is singing "humans". If we allow that he is singing "human," and that he means "human" as an adjective, "dancer" becomes untenable NOT because it is a noun but because it cannot be USED as an adjective! (At least, not in normal speech: "Well, captain, we found one: it seems to be mostly human but this part is clearly dancer"). This becomes nonsensical. BUT you can, with all linguistic validity, ask the question, "Are we human or are we descendants from an alien life form?" Note that "human" is an adjective" and "descendants" is a plural noun and the sentence works just fine this way. It works much better, sounds much more coherent, and, taking Occam's razor back into my hands, is "simpler" to hear the words as "Are we human or are we dancers?" In English we do not use the word "dancer" as an adjective, we use it as a noun; but we can be "human" as well as "a human". "Human" as adjective implies all of the qualities of "humanity" (and "inhumanity"); being "a human" simply distinguishes us from baboons and gibbons and says nothing about our sense of compassion, goodness, dignity, grace, etc.

And now for the curlicue: the question poses the two concepts, "human" and "dancers", as opposites, as something of which "we" (people) are either one or the other. THAT is the trick! We are all human, and we are all dancers! Asking the question should make you think that the choice means we are both, and that dancing is human! This is why this song is so wonderful! I am human! I am a dancer! We are human! We are dancers!

I hope that lengthy argument hasn't worn anyone out. But I felt the point worth the effort. BTW: the earlier interpretation about drug use must come from the mind of a drug user. There's nothing in this song about drugs. If you look hard enough, you can see drug use in "Swing low, sweet chariot". But it ain't there. Go get another hobby and stop viewing all music as being about the magic of drugs. Some music is, yes; this music is not, and you are a fool for trying to make it so."