The present thesis investigates the methodological aspects of two deconstructive works written by Paul de Man to highlight the differences which may occur between analytical and “purely” theoretical works in the field of deconstruction. The two works based on which the comparison will be conducted are “The Resistance to Theory” from 1982 and “Genesis and Genealogy” from 1972. My hypothesis is that even though the two texts belong to different genres, the former being a theoretical text, the letter an analytical one, due to the rigorous and technical manner which de Man uses to compose his texts, there is not much difference between the two. While “The Resistance to Theory” may be viewed as a manifesto, his analyses (exemplified here by “Genesis and Genealogy”) are the implementation of the theoretical tenets proposed by him. For that reason, one of the primary bases for the present comparison will be de Man’s central concept of rhetorical reading, to see how he puts it into practice. As the “Resistance to Theory” was published later than Allegories of Reading (1979), in which “Genesis and Genealogy” is collected, we will see how practice leads to theory in this case. My second hypothesis is that de Man’s complex writing style calls for deconstructive readers, in other words the comprehension of his text often require the same kind of complexity as the one kind presupposed by deconstructive theory.