It's interesting that you say that. I'm trying to square this with my own experiences - I absolutely loved Rudin and to this day it's one of my favorite textboo

It's interesting that you say that. I'm trying to square this with my own experiences - I absolutely loved Rudin and to this day it's one of my favorite textbooks; but at the same time I recognize what you're saying about hiding the scaffolding and I share your distaste towards that. I guess what I love in Rudin is that he gives the Level 2 details in such a lucid logical manner, with nothing missing and yet relatively tersely, all the details interlocking together. I got a sense of real beauty from reading him as an undergraduate that I did not get from other textbooks. I think that enjoyment ranks much higher from me than the disappointment from not getting the motivation early, which I do try to give myself when I teach something. I wonder if these two can be separated: if a textbook could be Rudin-style in logical unity, terseness, and beauty and yet not "hide the scaffolding". To some degree, I thought Stephen Abbott's "Understanding Analysis" was a step in that direction, though it was still too wordy and meandering compared to Rudin, for me.