Many literary analysts and most critical theorists are terrible writers. When they try to show off their brilliance and erudition, the price they pay is the attention of most readers. So rather than using them as examples, turn to good popular magazines. In the U.S., middle-brow magazines such as The New Yorker, Harpers (not be be confused with Harper's Bazaar), and Atlantic Monthly publish writers whose great talent is their readability. And achieving readability, not achieving a "literary" style, should be your goal.
On another post here, someone suggesting reading English aloud - and loudly. The idea is to get you more familiar with the sound of the language. That might be a good exercise for you.
Again, try The Elements of Style. I read chapters II and V every year or two. The book is far from perfect. It's old-fashioned - almost antique - and imposes too many silly, unnecessary, and outdated rules. You can tell that Strunk and White, though born a generation apart, were both fuddy-duddies. But it's also full of some of the best advice ever written. For instance:
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that he make every word tell."
It makes sense, right?
Student or Learner