This book has been recommended to me by a guiding hand/mentor mathematician when I showed interest in his field, and he seemed to really like this book however he doesn't really know me and my mathematical maturity (could be over-estimating or under-estimating).
I've read a little of Béla Bollobás' random graph theory and could follow perhaps a quarter of what I'd seen. I still mix up "Hamiltonian Path" and "Eulerian Path", so I'm wondering if I need to re-master my intro. discrete maths content before reading The Petersen Graph, or could I just dive in and look up whatever I'm dodgy on.
I'm aware that some books have innocuous titles like "Graph Theory" and turn out to be extremely dense and terse, taking several courses before you can make much progress. I'm a dodgy undergrad who's a bit rusty, and never gotten into combinatorics. I'm not quite expecting this book to be a transformative experience, but I hope for considerable enrichment (are these expectations too high?). I've done the basics of complex analysis, group theory and linear algebra.
I've perused the first pages of many maths books, only to be left in the dust when things go from 1 to 100 real fast. Is there a good way to see whether this might happen without actually reading the book until you hit a wall (not enough background material for instance)? If one doesn't know the particular books in question, it can be tricky to open Spivak Calculus expecting a watered-down high-school style expose rather than an intro to analysis.