If you write paragraphs like this . . . :

My reaction to the use of this version of Charlie Brown in association to the recent Charlie Hebdo attack is that it shows disappointment. Charlie Brown is a famous cartoon character from the famous Peanuts comics, with Charlie Brown being the focus character. In these comics and cartoons, Charlie is a young happy child. He’s always with his friends and dog, having fun and just being a child. In the heading of this blog, he is portrayed as an older, unhappy version of himself. I see him as a middle aged man who is starting to give up on himself. He is starting to grow a gut, he looks unkempt, bald, and looks very disappointed.

. . . consider revising them like this:

Charlie Brown, the happy cartoon child of the Peanuts strip, seems an unlikely emblem for the massacre of cartoonists at the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, except for his name. But the older, balder, unkempt version of Charlie that appears in the header of this blog, is a disappointed Charlie, growing a gut and largely disgruntled.

The purpose of both paragraphs is the same, to indicate that while Charlie Brown is ordinarily associated with childhood joy, friends, and pets; the coincidence of his name—and the possibility of drawing him other than as we remember him—makes him a convenient symbol for what happens to actual humans when they age and learn that their world cannot be frozen in time like a cartoon strip.

Both paragraphs do that. One does it more precisely, names the disappointment more specifically and concisely, and omits the needless words.