A red herring is a detail planted to direct suspicion away from the true solution while remaining fully explicable afterwards. The distinction between a fair red herring and a cheat is whether it survives rereading: the misleading detail must have a real cause in the story, so that when the reader returns to it they find not a lie but a different truth they misread. Mysteries are judged almost entirely on this, and it is the craft difference between a reader who feels outplayed and one who feels defrauded.
Also written as red herrings, false clue.
Every herring needs its own reason
The working requirement is that the misleading detail be caused by something other than the author's need to mislead. The suspect was lying about their whereabouts because they were having an affair; the object was moved because someone was cleaning. Each herring is therefore a small subplot, and writing them is the bulk of the labour in a mystery. Details that mislead for no reason at all are the most common failure, and they are why the last chapter of a weak mystery has to explain so much.
Character-shaped misdirection
The most durable red herrings come from characterisation rather than plotting. A person who behaves suspiciously because they are ashamed, protective, or simply unpleasant will mislead the reader without any authorial contrivance, and the explanation deepens them rather than merely clearing them. Mysteries whose herrings are all physical clues tend to feel mechanical; those whose herrings are people tend to be rereadable.
Placement against the real clue
The classic technique is to place the genuine clue immediately adjacent to a more interesting false one, so attention is captured by the wrong object in the same paragraph. This is fair — the information was given — and it works because reader attention is finite. It also means the real clue should generally be plainer than writers expect: it survives being seen, because it was not being looked at.
How many
Too few and the solution is visible by elimination; too many and the reader stops tracking and waits to be told, which kills participation. A conventional working range is three to five substantial false lines of enquiry in a novel-length mystery, each with a suspect attached, resolved at different points rather than all at the end.
Where to see it working
The Hound of the Baskervilles — Arthur Conan Doyle
The escaped convict is a fully explicable subplot in its own right, not a detail that exists only to mislead.
Magpie Murders — Anthony Horowitz
Runs herrings on two narrative levels at once, with each remaining explicable within its own frame.
The Thursday Murder Club — Richard Osman
Misdirection driven almost entirely by characters concealing unrelated embarrassments, which is the character-shaped version.
How it goes wrong
Planting details that mislead for no in-world reason, forcing a final chapter of explanation.
Making every herring a physical clue, which reads as mechanical.
Resolving all false leads at once at the end rather than staggering them.
Hiding the real clue so well that the reader could not have had it, which is the definition of an unfair mystery.
Related terms
Chekhov's Gun
The principle that a conspicuously introduced detail must later be used, and anything never used should be removed.
MacGuffin
An object everyone in the story wants whose specific nature is irrelevant, existing to generate pursuit rather than meaning.
Cozy Mystery
Crime fiction with an amateur sleuth in a closed community, where violence happens offstage and order is restored.
Unreliable Narrator
A narrator whose account the reader is meant to doubt, where the gap between telling and truth is itself the story's subject.
Not sure which shelf your own manuscript belongs on? Run it through the book genre and comp title finder — free, no sign-up.