This is a relatively short novel that handles its stack of big issues very convincingly regarding plot and character development, and at the same time gives you a lot to think about – with the characters, whose (self-)reflectivenes is an integral part of the narrative and almost never feels forced .
It's the tale of a group of very divers people (sexual and gender identity-wise and also regarding their neurological status), who have magical abilities (magical abilities and gender/sexual and neurological identity are not connected), and have to decide on the right way to tackle the mounting danger that the islands they live on are destroyed by a natural catastrophe, and with it their very inclusive, slightly anarchist community and culture. The volcano at the heart of their archipelago is tethered to a huge sentient entity full of magical energy, the star of the tides, that sleeps deep down in the sea around the islands. The star's sleep is more and more disturbed by nightmares, it's expanding, which in turn is activating the volcano. The old star keeper, who knew all this, but couldn't convince his council members nor the islanders how very dangerous the situation is, and how little time is left to conceive a strategy how to deal with this emergency, has now died. And the new star keeper, Ranra, a council member and one of the narrators, and her counselors are facing the exact same situation, but much much more urgent. The whole novel centers around questions of responsibilities in an emergency, and how to deal with the knowledge that you and your decision or indecisions are part of the problem or even made it worse.
In a way The Unbalancing a treatise on catastrophe / emergency ethics, but as a well crafted, very moving novel: Is it okay or even necessary that those who know how things stand, force their decisions on the others (that don't know, won't know or don't believe in the urgency)? Does urgency overrule participatory decision making? Do you have the duty to participate in a rescue operation, which will maybe cost your life, but in any case will put you in a position to actively go against your own personality / character / neurological make-up? Does a noble end justify compromising in relations to the means? Is a discussion that so easily divides between ends and means not the wholly inadequate framework to look at the situation, and has actually brought on this situation in the first place? What does failure mean, and, again, isn't the thinking in failure/success inadequate to frame or address acting in an existential crisis, and leads to the kind of doomerism and despair, that in the end  prevented the old star keeper from doing anything at all, except waiting for disaster to strike.
I know this sounds very dry and philosophical, but although this novel is some sort of novel of ideas or even an allegorical novel, it's neither boring, nor dull: The story is very exciting and full of suspense, the character arcs are very convincingly developed, and the writing style is very evocative and lyrical. If you liked This Is How You Lose the Time War , give this a go. I think you will like it.