Ah, I see what you mean, and I appreciate the feedback!
I might have actually overworked some bits, probably a lot in the sky. 

Thanks for taking the time to explain what you see. I'll carry these notes forward into the next scene I draw :)

Ok, while I like the idea, landscape and also palette (not really the transition between green and light brown) there are parts where I don't know what the pixeles there represent - for example, most of the left top part. By logic I know those are clouds (and knowing the book, I assume they should look disturbing/foreboding) but there is no sense of depth, it just looks flat and random for me. The same issue for some other parts - basically  I don't know what it is.

There is no good separation of planes also except of perspective in architecture (it works well) and light on mountains.

I'm also not a big fan of central composition - but it's just me.

I was trying to address what you have asked. Don't feel offended - I comment on pictures that I like or find interesting. 

So for me it is a good picture.

Interesting. I spent a couple weeks on it and rather thought the level of detail was getting a bit dense. What did you have in mind? Any recommendations?

nice,

a bit unfinished