The differences between them...

To me, the most obvious difference is that while Maso discusses writing outside the normal realm of societal barriers, Di Prima actually does.

Now, past that first "surface" difference, I feel that they are arguing for different things. Maso is arguing about writing outside of structure to think outside the box and "stick it to the man." It's unorthodox writing for the sake of being unorthodox, and that the hope is, that writing in this way will somehow free us from the constraints of structure and oppression.

I think Di Prima is bringing a bit more clarity to the table. The focus there is not losing out on the imagination; that traditional work that robs us of our imagination is not worthwhile or desired. I think the argument is more for holding onto yourself despite what society may say you should do instead of being different to be different.

Di Prima took more of a risk from a literary standpoint. Yes, Maso does a better job of challenging the reader directly and asking questions that "shouldn't" be asked, but Di Prima wrote outside the normal construct. Although it is a poem, the structure is free and Di Prima did it 15 years before Maso did, when such thoughts weren't as common.

I'm not trying to say that Maso did a bad job, but it felt kind of like "Do as I say, not as I do." I understand that for the purposes of reaching an audience, she had to write in a way that was readable to everyday people, but it still felt a little hollow for me. She wants us to write in a revolutionary way, but her writing is too subtle with its differences. While this wouldn't be something I expect academically, it doesn't feel revolutionary in the text.

So long story short (too late) I feel as if Di Prima went all the way in terms of writing in a new way, but didn't spell our the argument as well as Maso, and Maso spelled it all out for us quite clearly, but didn't follow her own advice.