The trouble is, I think, that a poetry, Prynne's or anyone's, doesn't actually carry as a purpose a philosophical propositionality of the kind implied by "materialist", so you can't just cherry-pick your favourite poets for whom the linguistic surface acts as a barrier and label them "materialist" because that masks enormous differences of method and belief. Prynne's belief in "resistance" has a "materialist" tenor to it but it was articulated very early and if it informs Brass it does so in a mode pushed to a far extreme: you don't talk about resistance when you are erecting the impossible.And there is a contradiction since any radical departure from what aficionados call (wrongly I think) "singular discourse" sets in motion a whole circus of mental acrobatics on the part of the reader who wishes to cope with it, e.g. leaping across enormous gaps of sense and back-reading for irrational connectives, which amount to acceding to a mystique. Indeed all that poetry bears a quite heavy load of what I can only call mysticism, which makes the use of the term "materialist" in anything like its dictionary meaning quite inappropriate. The polar contrary to "singular discourse" is "speaking in tongues".It would make as much sense to talk of Georgian poetry or Tennyson as more fully immersed in the materiality of earth compared with the cerebral manipulation of citation by recent so-called "materialist" poets.If it helps, "dialectical materialism" (LeFebvre) was attended to in Cambridge at the time (but that was Andrew Crozier, not JHP), and consequently Situationism was taken seriously (that was JHP). I don't think Bob Cobbing was noticed at all.pR