Over-explain or be obscure???

Sometimes in fiction, the writer has to tackle something that needs to be explained or clarified, like an unreliable narrator, a piece of history with a character, a new world or a strange situation that has been integrated in the book.
So there are two ways to go, I think.
You can be obscure-- either allude to things, or ignore them (let them be unmasked later in the plot)
or
You can explain, explain, explain, explain.... and then explain some more.
I think being obscure it better, because it, to me, usually signifies that the writer is subtlety queuing you in with images,
while explaining away usually means you're telling the reader; and usually you're telling them over and over.

The danger with obscurity is... it's obscure. It could enchant the reader, or it could confuse and completely repel them. If they don't know what's going on you haven't done your job.
I know there's a golden median somewhere but... has anyone tried one or the other? What are the effects and downfalls?
As for unreliable narrators... I'll can of worms that issue. That needs a thread of it's own.
Really hoping to hear from you,
The Universe

Unreliable narrators can be pretty fun— and don't always need to be explained. I've heard about a Japanese play that is only three scenes, and each scene is the same premiss: a couple getting robbed on the road by one man. Each scene is completely different, told from the man's, the woman's, and the robber's point of view. You never learn which one was "right" or even if any of them were. The play sticks in your head a bit more as a result. The very fact that each scene is so different lets you know all the narrators are unreliable.

As for when to explain and not... all up to the story and the author (and what actually needs to be hinted at/told). I've found being obscure more useful at the beginning when you need a good puzzle to drag the reader into the story. Explanation can come later, when the author has dropped so many hints that the reader is practically begging for lots and lots of telling about what in the world is going on. I have done the reverse (big infodump at the beginning and building obscurity on that) and I found problems with pacing. It was too slow and I was getting slightly bored.

Obscurity is tricky to handle, I will say that. I went the obscure root recently with a new draft of my novel, and I kept wondering "Is this too obscure? Will readers catch on?" When I have a hard time writing more because of that little voice, I run the scene by some test-readers. If they know my story well, then I ask them if they could have followed the story without knowing what they do. It's always best to run the story by readers who don't know the plot as well, just to double-check. (Ie- post it on YWS and get random people to read it)

As for telling, it has its place so long as you keep a hold of how often you repeat things. Tell us once and we'll get it. With showing, you often need to show the quality more than once to get readers to believe it (character values and traits fall under the "show often" category.) You can also show events shifting, just by using vocabulary.

Hope this helps!

~Rosey

People always say I use too much dialogue and not enough description, but since I write first person, it's kind of hard - they're not going to describe their own friend without a reason. Past tense is easier for this, especially if the character is "aware" of a reader - they can then describe things for the reader's benefit. Present tense is a nightmare, especially as you need to balance between describing what they notice in the moment and what's actually important to the scene. In present tense, you can't say "I barely noticed the _______ which I lated realised..." because they're in the moment.