Some treacherous advice in the comments. I personally do not consider English literature and journalistic style guides to be applicable to primary scientific and technical literature writing without a diligent amount of scrutiny.
First and foremost, valid work needs to follow basic logical and empirical tenets. This is not easy nor does it come for free, and it is expected from primary scientific literature writers to take their time (or else risk engaging in low-quality work - or worse, pseudoscience).
Second, impactful work needs to easily connect to directly and indirectly adjacent literature. Truly impactful work needs to be relevant, correct, precise but understandable, comparable, reproducible and extendable, all in connection to related work. This is not easy nor does it come for free, and it is expected from writers to constantly check literature at every step before continuing (or else risk building on fragile ground - or worse, doing something that already exists).
Last, on doing something that already exists, novel work needs to not reinvent the many systems and subsystems it encompasses. Truly novel work needs a humble understanding of unknown unknowns. This comes at a hefty price of extensive learning and reading which is neither easy nor free.
Writing should be deferred to the consolidation of each incremental step related to primary scientific work.
Not writing should not be understood as procrastination of the scientific endeavor unless the work does not concern easing or putting you closer to steps' objectives.
My personal advice:
It is fine to reach blockers in scientific work. Other people certainly have reached similar blockers and not given up. Other people have also reached blockers and proposed alternative approaches. Work on: structuring ways to attack problems; attacking simpler or scaled-down versions of problems and formally classifying each version; mapping all different ways simpler problems can be modelled and attacked; strategizing how to reintroduce simplifications or scale; building solid foundations, sharing subproblems with colleagues or deferring certain knowledges outside the scope to the literature.
It is also fine to consider other lines of research if blockers are indeed unmanageable. Understand how the problem can be applied in other settings and consider pivoting to one particular setting. Understand as well that scientific work is not personal and you should not take inabilities as personal defeats.
Contributing knowledge to the scientific literature is hard, tiresome, and takes time and patience.
You want to run the distance, not sprint. You also want to make it to the end, not compete.