Where it sits
Which would make the phrase for a misleading clue a misleading clue.
Tell it apart
| Aspect | Red herring | MacGuffin |
|---|---|---|
| Misleads | The audience | Nobody |
| Load-bearing | No | Yes |
| Matters in itself | Seems to | Doesn't |
| Removable | Yes | No |
| Drives the plot | No | Yes |
| Misleads audience | Yes | No |
| Can be removed | Yes | No |
| Characters care | Incidentally | Enormously |
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.
What it doesn't mean
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 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.
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
English — a herring cured by smoking until it turns red, as opposed to white (fresh-salted) herring
It names a preparation, not a species. There is no red-coloured fish involved.
- early 15th century
'Red herring' means a herring cured by smoking until it turns reddish-brown and pungent.
- 1807
William Cobbett tells the hound-distracting story in his Political Register, popularising the figurative use — and possibly inventing the anecdote.
In real life
- Plot device: in Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlet (1887), the word RACHE is written at the crime scene. The police take it for German (revenge) and go looking for a German connection, which is exactly the wrong trail.
- Plot device: in Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles (1902), the butler Barrymore is seen signalling with a candle onto the moor at night. He turns out to be helping his wife feed her brother, an escaped convict, and has nothing to do with the hound.
- Plot device: in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997), Harry and his friends are sure Snape is trying to steal the Stone. The thief is Quirrell, and Snape was trying to protect Harry all along.
- Logic sense: asked why the project ran six months late, the manager spends five minutes on how hard the team worked. That may be true, and it has nothing to do with the question.
- Logic sense: 'Why worry about my driving when there are people out there driving drunk?' The drunk drivers are real; they just are not what was being discussed.
Questions
Q01So 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.
Q02Why 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.
Q03Is 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.