>>8
Don't be such a dick. Depending on op's level he still be at the point where "calculus" is just a buzzword to represent higher-level math. & while being able to apply calculus is simple to the point of almost being mindless, actually understanding its intricacies in full is not such a simple task & certainly falls into the realm of higher-level math. If "you want to do calculus *of variations* and shit", is that still fancy arithmetic to you? Does that not qualify as calculus?
Not to mention that arithmetic is a subset of mathematics, regardless of how simple it is in comparison to the higher levels. Everyone starts somewhere, don't be such a fucking elitist.
>>1
OP, I agree with some of the above to start with real analysis. "Introduction to Real Analysis" by Bartle & Sherbert was the textbook I used & it's one of my favorite textbooks I've ever been assigned. However, it assumes some prior experience in applying calculus, I don't know about the Abbott textbook mentioned above. As far as getting through real analysis, I think most people are capable given willingness to learn & enough confidence for them to not go in expecting it to overwhelm them. It may take more work for some than others, but if you're actually interested you should be able to take it on. If you're having trouble with real analysis, go backward & look into anything the book reccommends as prerequisites. I got A's in linear algebra & low-level calculus before I took it, but I didn't really have a good understanding of what was going on until a little later (especially with linear). I'm really not sure if my prior "knowledge" with those actually helped me learn.