One thing I would ask, Winterfox, is why you would use limited third person if you wanted to get that far into the thoughts of the characters? Wouldn't first person be better if you are trying to describe everything from the viewpoint of the character only? Isn't the best part of limited third person that it allows the author to show the reader more than the character would if they were narrating?
Just a few thoughts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Very simple. Limited third-person lets you mask some of the character's thoughts and motives; first-person doesn't. Another thing is that I have a fairly large range of characters whose heads the reader gets to see through. Limited third-person allows for much better distinction between characters than using "I" all the time. Some writers avoid this by typing, at the beginning of the sequence, "XYZ's point of view" -- I intensely dislike this approach, and will never, ever, use it. Yes, I'm aware that through dialogue and difference in voices, it can be shown that the speaker is the duke rather than the beggar, but that's neither here nor there.
There's also the problem I have with using "I", period. Suffice to say, limited third-person works best for me, and I'm comfortable with it. I may experiment with first-person sometimes, but that'd be reserved for vignettes, drabbles and one-shots.
For GlanceALot, if you don't mind some more critiques:
On his left the wolf, which jumped at him, turns to face him - on the other side two others approach him, cautiously, growling, ready to attack.
"...which has jumped at him," not "jumped." Tense error.
This sentence could be separated into two. Suggestion: "On his left, the wolf that has first pounced on him turns to face Glance, its golden eyes appraising him. On his right, two others cautiously approach him, growling and ready to attack."
The two to his right jump simultaneously - one he evades with a reflexive side-step, the second's gorge is slit by his sword.
I see that you use "jump" a lot. There are stronger, more exact verbs -- try leap, spring, for instance. This sentence is also grammatically, well, screwy. Maybe: "The two to his right leap simultaneously. One he evades with a reflexive sidestep; the other's throat he slits with his blade." (Active voice, IMO, would serve better here.)
In the same moment he is hit in the back and falls on his nose.
Again, active voice is usually, ah, stronger. So: "In the same moment, something hits him in the back, causing him to fall on his nose." (His nose? Maybe his face?)
He feels teeth biting his shoulder, hitting his mithril chain armor - hears a loud, breaking noise, a painful howl - and feels the pressure on his shoulder cease.
This sentence is incredibly hard to parse. It staggers, it stutters, and leaves me blinking and muttering, "What
?" Suggestion: "He feels teeth (fangs?) sinking into his shoulder; they came to a sudden stop at contact with his mithril chain. Then come a sharp crack -- probably a breaking tooth -- and a pained howl. The pressure on his shoulder immediately lifts." ("Painful howl" would indicate that the howl causes Glance pain.)
The first wolf jumps on him again. Glance quickly turns round and plunges his sword in the soft belly of the wolf.
This, I think, might flow better as a single sentence. Perhaps: "The first wolf springs at him again; Glance quickly pivots and plunges his sword into the animal's soft belly."
He frees himself from the heavilly wounded wolf lying on him and kills him with a targeted stab in the heart.
Eh. Maybe: "He shakes himself free of the heavily
wounded wolf atop him and kills it with a precise stab to the heart."
Of course, they are just suggestions, and it's probably mostly a matter of style and preference. Take 'em for what they're worth.