I tend of have this dilemma a lot also. There are lots of perfectly valid ways to go about it, but sometimes they aren't appropriate. For instance, because I write because I "have something to say", it's very difficult to know where to start. All I know initially is that I have a general point to get across, and now I need to find characters and situations to convey that point, and hope that a coherent plot flows from that.
And it's hard. If you want your peice to be convincing and not just some contrived and obvious message book, if you want it to be enjoyable to people who like characters, and enjoyable to people who like plots, and just all around fun to read... It's hard.
It so happens I'm having this problem right now, only I'm even fuzzy on the message. But here's what I do. If it helps, great. If not, I'm sure you'll get your inspiration in good time.
I start with a scene, something that illustrates or at least provides a platform for whatever I'm trying to say. Usually the scene starts as a convergence of circumstances, and then I plug in a vague notion of what sort of characters I think might work best for it.
From there, I flesh out the general ideas that could create such circumstances and then look for ways to exploit them for more support and character ideas. That sort of percolation takes a long time for me, usually months. This is all well and good consider how little time I actually spend writing.
Eventually, bits and peices will start to crystalize, making it easier and easier to form plot connections, flesh out characters, and to establish a workable timeline. Once that happens, however, it's time to brutally assess whether or not my prized scenarios work well enough for what I've got. Sadly, the answer is often no.
There's a line from the movie
The Two Jakes (the sequel to
Chinatown) that one of my college writing professors liked to quote. It's something to the effect of "you never know what you could have been like under different circumstances". I took that to heart, because like him, I see the whole "character versus plot" war is kind of silly. Of course it's true that if your characters do things "that your characters woudln't do", it's going to be bad. That's a strike against the plot-driven mode of operation. But it's also true that if your characters don't do anything intersting, no one will give a crap how much fidelity they have. That's a strike against character-driven modes. Of course it helps to have interesting characters. But the Joker is a fanstastic character, as is Batman. But that doesn't mean plenty of episodes of Batman didn't suck because the plot was nonsense.
Anyway, that quote. If you're like me, take it to heart. The idea is, if you find your characters aren't doing what they would really do in order to follow your plot, change your plot. But if you find you'd rather have the plot,
change the characters. It's a dance, and for my mode of writing, it's a necessary dance. Because my motivation is to "say something", I
must do it, even though it's more difficult and (much) harder to revise.
YMMV.
