This isn't so much a query for books as a query for the best way by which one should approach analysis. For someone who has a basic familiarity with the mechanics of proof, I have found the treatment in Rudin to be sorely concise. A few concepts which the author deemed trivial and subsequently chose to omit, seem unobtainable with first sight. The text celebrates terseness in the cost of clarity, and I am very much deluded as to why the book is recommended so tastefully. This leads me to believe that it has something to do with how I'm approching the subject, or the book. Perhaps it's a lack of visualizing abstract concepts, or plainly the fact that I'm not too familiar with the subject matter, but if I'm not able to obtain the basics from Rudin, how can I ever be able to?