Apologies if this has been a topic of discussion before; I'm not very adept at searching through forums, even with the search feature . Anyway, I recently had a discussion with a writing colleague of mine about which is better to start with as a "new writer," a series or a standalone novel, and I thought that discussion worth bringing to these forums. For years, I’ve heard the best place to start as a “new writer” is with a series. Until the conversation, I hadn’t noticed that what I’d heard was all hearsay. Publishers and agencies were more likely to start with a new writer who had begun a series because they didn’t need to worry about the new writer being a “one hit wonder,” is along the lines of what I heard. But there were also rumors of new writers beginning a series, having an absolutely fabulous first book, and then ruining their career with the second. My colleague had heard otherwise. He’d heard that publishers and agencies were more likely to take on new writers with a standalone novel, because they didn’t need to worry about whether or not the author could produce the subsequent books. Take Stephen King, for example, who started his career with a standalone novel among many others. There is also the possibility of standalone novels to be a part of a series, like Terry Brooks’ Sword of Shannara series. But the question remains, when trying to sell your novel to a publisher or agency in the markets today, should you advertise it as the first book of a series or a standalone? If it’s a standalone with the intentions of being a part of a series, should you advertise that fact? Basically, do publishers or agencies even care if you’re attempting to write a series from the book you are submitting to them?