A red herring is a detail planted to pull attention away from what actually matters — and its famous origin story may itself be a fabrication.
No coiner for the fish sense. William Cobbett popularised the figurative sense in Cobbett's Weekly Political Register of 14 February 1807 - and may have invented the origin story himself.
// Where it sits
Which would make the phrase for a misleading clue a misleading clue.
What it really means
The story is everywhere: escaping fugitives, or trainers of hunting hounds, would drag a strongly-smoked red herring across a trail to throw the dogs off — hence a false lead.
The researchers who went looking for that practice couldn't find it. Gerald Cohen and Robert Scott Ross concluded that the anecdote, popularised by William Cobbett in his 1807 Political Register, was probably invented — Cobbett appears to have made up a piece of folk practice to make a political point. Etymonline hedges an earlier version the same way, noting a 1680s fugitive-and-bloodhound claim only as supposedly.
So the phrase for a fabricated distraction may rest on a fabricated distraction. Which is either very funny or very appropriate.
What is solid is the fish. From the early 15th century, a red herring was simply a herring cured by smoking until the flesh turned reddish-brown and pungent — as opposed to white herring, fresh-salted. It names a preparation, not a species. There is no red fish.
One distinction worth keeping. The logical fallacy is an irrelevance that derails an argument — bad reasoning, or bad faith. The plot device is a relevant-seeming clue, deliberately planted, which the reader is supposed to follow and be wrong about. The first is a failure. The second is a feature, and doing it well is most of what a mystery writer is for.
Where it comes from
It names a preparation, not a species. There is no red-coloured fish involved.
Myths & misconceptions
Huntsmen genuinely trained hounds using red herrings, and that's where the phrase comes from.
Researchers Gerald Cohen and Robert Scott Ross found the origin story is likely fabricated — Cobbett's 1807 anecdote may describe a practice that never existed. Etymonline also flags an earlier fugitive-and-bloodhound claim as merely 'supposedly'.
The plot-device sense and the logic sense are the same thing.
The fallacy is an irrelevance that derails an argument. The fiction device is a relevant-SEEMING clue deliberately planted for the reader. One is a failure of reasoning; the other is a designed feature.
Compare & contrast
Red herring vs MacGuffin
A red herring misleads the audience and can be removed without collapsing anything. A MacGuffin misleads nobody — everyone knows it's a pretext — but it cannot be removed, because the entire plot is people chasing it.
| // | Red herring | MacGuffin |
|---|---|---|
| Misleads | The audience | Nobody |
| Load-bearing | No | Yes |
| Matters in itself | Seems to | Doesn't |
| Removable | Yes | No |
How it connects
- Chekhovs Guna red herring is a deliberately loaded gun that never fires — the rule's designed breach.
- Macguffinthe other 'meaningless object' device, working the opposite way round.
Tell it apart
Questions people ask
- So the dog story is false?
- Unproven at best. Cohen and Ross argue Cobbett fabricated the 1807 anecdote, and Etymonline flags an earlier fugitive-and-bloodhound version as merely 'supposedly'. The phrase is genuinely old; the explanation for it may not be.
- Why red?
- Because heavy smoking and curing turns the flesh reddish-brown and makes it pungent. It names a method of preparation rather than a kind of fish — a red herring is a kipper.
- Is using one cheating?
- Only if it contradicts established facts. Fair-play mystery convention allows misdirection but not falsehood — the clue must be genuinely ambiguous rather than a lie the author later retracts.