In the sciences is generally accepted that if you want to contribute something novel to the scientific literature you first have to get well grounded in what has already been written by others. The reason for this is that a scientist's "a-ha!" detector gravitates towards obvious empty spaces in what they have seen. If a scientist has read a lot, to the point where their knowledge matches what is really out there in the world, their "a-ha!" detector gravitates towards real gaps in the knowledge of the world that need filling. If they haven't read a lot, then the gaps they detect are false gaps; empty spaces not in the knowledge of the world, but in their own knowledge.

I'm pretty sure it works that way in normal writing, too. You have to learn the patterns that you are reacting to before you have a chance to transcend them. Most writers don't, so they just wind up filling in the blank spaces created by their own ignorance, which thousands of others have already filled. It's not exactly useless -- a good writer who says obvious things is still spreading meaningful ideas to those who also need to hear those obvious things. But if you read enough of it, it quickly becomes old.

Anyhow, it sounds like you're trying to transcend. I wish you the best, and I'm sure everyone else here does as well. We'll be here when you get back.