The main character of a Noire-setting I'm working on is a bitter, angry, disgruntled diner owner. To put it short, he hates himself, hates the world, and when he screws up, he mercilessly lambasts himself depending on how big the screw up is. He's also an acoholic, and if you interrupt him during his nightly drinking, he'll yell at you. The reason he's like this is because of his sucky childhood living on a farm out west. His sister contracted polio and became paralyzed from the waist down; eventually she died of a sickness a few years later. His elder brother left the family because he didn't want to have to deal with a messed up farm and crippled sibling, leaving the care of said farm and sibling in the hands of Charles Wilkins (MC's name) and his parents. Then his parents loose the farm shortly after the sister's death. They moved back east to Alabama where they tried to eek out a living in a family-run diner. In the year 1945, Wilkins is the sole owner of the diner after the deaths of his parents a few decades earlier. My problem is that while there are ample enough evidence to show why he's so angry at life, isn't that going to eventually wear out the readers? They'll likely end up saying, "Yeah, I get it, your life really sucks! Please get over it!!" Don't get me wrong, 99% of the story is just him solving the mystery (while not being too overly enthusiastic about it), and the 1% are brief paragraphs of angst that we don't see that often. Still, I just wonder if reading about a not-very-happy, stoic MC would wear the reader down. Surely there should be some spots of joy, right? Some...improvement on his part? If he's just like he was when he first started, then wouldn't that leave the readers empty? Thoughts??