I find that "Narrativism" seems to get a fairly high-brow and strict treatment when talked about in the abstract, but then is given pretty broad berth when spoken about in the specific...like which games are Narrativist or not.
Agreed. I've posted in the past that Ron Edwards gives too narrow a formal definition of narrativism, relative to the actual classifcations that he then makes (eg by his formal definition The Dying Earth is not narrativist, because not straightforwardly concerned with some "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence". It is concerned with cyncial humour).
I don't have Dying Earth, but I don't know what from your description and the reviews I've read makes it particularly narrative
The key to the narrativist dimensions of Dying Earth are: (i) the GM's scenario design guidelines, which require paying attention to inane rites and customs, outlandish dress, etc; (ii) the refresh rules for character ability pools (every roll of the dice costs a point from the pool), which require doing inane or outlandish things; and (iii) the PC advancement rules, which grant points for advancement in return for uttering pre-allocated Vancian taglines (such as "Know, then, that I am a powerful wizard") in character, in the course of play, in such a way as to maximise the contextually-grounded humour of the utterance.
So looked at as a whole, the GM is trying to set up whacky situations which the players will engage via their PCs; and the PCs are looking for whacky situations which will permit them either to refresh their pools and/or utter their taglines; all with the goal of producing inane and cynical Vancian humour.
Edwards does say of The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant and some other narrativist RPGs:
These games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content, but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing.
He also says:
The Dying Earth facilitates Narrativist play, because its Situations are loaded with the requirement for satirical, judgmental input on the part of the players.
I take this as an implicit recognition of the limitations of his own formal characterisation of "story now". My own view is that "narrativism" is best used to characterise any non-simulationist play where the main goal is expressive or aesthetic (but not the self-referential aesthetics of satisfying simulationism - the value aimed at or expressed in narrativist play is external to the play experience itself). Whereas "gamism" is non-simulationist play where the main goal is winning, showing off, or otherwise "doing well".
Also, in digging up those passage on The Dying Earth, I also found this:
I'll begin by identifying a very common misconception: that if enjoyable Exploration is identifiable during play, then play must be Simulationist or at least partly so. This is profoundly mistaken: if you address Premise, it's Narrativist play. Period. If the Exploration involved, no matter how intensive, hones and focuses that addressing-Premise process, then that Exploration is still Narrativist, not Simulationist. . .
"El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play.
That bit about "stopping reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play" is especially apposite to 4e's suitability for vanilla narrativism - it reverses the general trend of the previous 30 years of D&D design, which is to increase the simulationist orientation at every opportunity.
The other key step for stopping reinforcing Simulationism, in fantasy RPGing, is brought out in
this passage:
In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.
The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play
I also think that 4e makes this easier than earlier versions of D&D, through its almost complete abandonment of mechanical alignment, and through its changes to the cosmology, which make it less something to be explored and figured out, and more something to take a stance in relation to.
But that view of the metagame function of 4e's cosmology is probably contentious.
EDIT:
Objection noted. But I think your's is the less common angle of attack on hit points. There is post after post on these boards explaining how hit points are fine and dandy and merely abstract, and its short-rest healing plus 4e's death and dying rules that rendered the abstraction into an "unviable" FitM mechanic.
As someone who doesn't like HP in general, hit points have been that way since the beginning (or very near it.) I don't have any objection to FitM at all, but the way HP regularly forces minor "retcons" annoys me to no end. Its the length of the resolution, combined with numerous resolutions in between, that bugs me. Anyone who thinks that the Quantum-mechanical nature of the HP system is new to 4e is just fooling themselves. 
