A note about writing believable dialog: You can’t, or don’t wanna forget you’re contraction-happy yourself
I see a lot of student writing in which characters say things like “You are not the one who is to blame for all of these dark maroon, crescent moon-shaped stains on the carpet.” It may not ever be technically wrong, there are two problems. One, and this always has exceptions, but generally people speak in somewhat fragmented sentences full of contractions (like you’re aren’t who’s) as opposed to you are or are not. Going to blame, “You’re not to blame” or “You aren’t the one to blame” would both be more believable sentences from a typical person… and if they’re atypical, that needs to be clear, and should have a rationale behind it in line with themes or plot. The more that everything ties together, the tighter your prose will be, ya dig?
OK, the second thing wrong with the sentence “for all of these dark maroon, crescent moon-shaped stains on the carpet.” Again, an atypical person might, maybe say something like this, like, a miserable poet character (aren’t they all miserable? Wait…) but the general populous will be more to the point and less writerly in their descriptions. They’d say “for the stains” or “for the carpet” or “fo’ dese dadgumit shee-razz stainz in this heah cahpet,” if it’s Buck Fanshaw talking maybe. So putting it together: “You’re not to blame for the carpet,” or “You aren’t the one to blame for the stains.”
and once more for effect, side-by-side.
“You are not the one who is to blame for all of these dark maroon, crescent moon-shaped stains on the carpet.”
or
“You’re not to blame for the carpet.”
or switch it up entirely keeping the same sentiment with:
“The stains aren’t your fault.”
That sound reasonable enough? If not, eh, it’s just water off a duck’s back to me. But if it sounded like it might make a little sense, go through your prose and analyze the dialog with a specific eye for possible contractions/simplifications, especially about non-plot-point issues.