I think sometimes I confuse "earth-shattering" with "flowery prose" and you may be doing the same sort of thing. A lot of the classics that are deemed poignant or whatever, well, they were written in a different age and as such the word choices and sentence structure seems flowery to us now, sometimes. Perhaps not in the adjective sense, but in the flow sense.
But my point is, most of the time when I hit a new scene, I want it to be brilliant on the first draft. The only times I've ever thought it was brilliant after the fact was when I had gone a little flowery with it.
Someone above said that different people will find different things earth-shattering. I think this is very true. Just write what you want to write, and edit it a couple of times. Not only can you not get anywhere unless you start, but for me the most earth-shattering books I've ever read got that way not because of their starts, or even their concepts, but because it was consistent and at the end of reading it I would go, "Wow, that was awesome."
For instance, I think Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene was earth-shattering and poignant and everything, and that wasn't even fictional prose. It was a dry science book. Like I said, for me it's all about the overall effect of the book. If you try to achieve the overall effect of the book before you've actually written it, you'll just give yourself a headache and not even start, if you're anything like me.
The first book I ever planned, I had so much outline, and it was a concept that I loved, and I loved the characters, and I loved the plot lines - only when I sat down to start writing it, I found that I couldn't get any words out because I had built the idea up in my head so much.
So that was just my long-winded way of saying, just write something and it'll either work out or it won't, but at least you'll have tried.
