I always jump into literary criticism thinking 'Oh this is going to be interesting!' and then I find myself nodding off while I'm reading it, though.
agreed. read way too much boring lit crit at uni. but the occasional book/chapter/article would really get through. i wish i could remember the author now, but i read a really great book on kerouac's 'on the road'. i was having to read it for a class, and really wasn't 'getting it'. this book gave it a context i wasn't aware of, and i enjoyed kerouac much more after that (still not a huge fan, though).
as for the bukowski/carver comparisons: i don't know if i've read enough bukowski to make any concrete analysis, but i've read a lot carver and i don't see a whole lot of similarity. both were alcoholics, both led rough sort of lives, both wrote about 'real life'. but to me their styles are vastly different. bukowski is much more eloquent and graceful with his use of language, more conversational, while carver is very stark and spare (try reading one of his stories out loud). carver's humour is much more oblique, much darker. i feel like i have to work a bit harder when i read carver, that i'm rewarded by multiple readings, but bukowski is much easier to 'get' - i think he's extremely accessible, more so than carver. i don't think that necessarily makes bukowski a better writer, just different.