 Both works of literature contain representations of identity that the protagonists explore, respectively, through conflict.  
        Mademoiselle Riesz represents a working rejection of convention, a portrait of the Edna that could be should she defy the role of devoted mother and wife which is expected of her.  Part of this defiance would be non-compliance with the whims of men.  As Edna begins to awaken, she fancies the notion that she is “becoming an artist” (Chopin 86).  This draws her to Riesz, who doubts Edna’s fortitude for such a life, prophetically pointing out that “…to succeed, the artist must possess the courageous soul…the soul that dares and defies” (86).  Riesz refers in large part to a far more patriarchal culture, which we know prevailed historically in the place and period of Edna’s world.  Have you ever wondered about the origin of the commonly used expression “rule of thumb”?  During the period of this story, English law, a contributor to the culture of early America, held that a husband was permitted to beat his wife for any reason with a rod no wider than his thumb.  Furthermore, such “reasons” might have been as trivial as dinner being ten minutes late on the table.  Careers were reserved for men, while women were expected to stay home raising children and tending house.  Even those women wealthy enough to hire servants to perform these duties, such as Edna, were nonetheless expected to center their activities around their house, husbands and children.  If nothing else, wives were expected to grant sex on demand and exist more as the husband’s legal property than an independent force.  In fact, Edna’s husband, feeling a loss of control, defines Edna’s non-compliance as an illness, such as Arobin’s assessment of “demented” (106), thus seeking the services of a doctor.  Her husband tells the doctor, “She lets housekeeping go to the dickens.”  He further complains that he is being denied sex.  He is troubled by her “tramping about by herself” (88).  It seems Chopin reveals much about the expectations of others through the voice of Edna’s husband – so much so, that I wonder whether his character might allegorically represent the establishment and its view of marriage.  He reacts poorly when Edna admits she has been going out of the house with no particular explanation each time.  Instead of voicing some concern about her having extramarital relations, however, his alarm revolves around convention; “people don’t do such things” (73).  A healthy spousal desire might be to feel assured of a partner’s fidelity, or even of a partner’s well-being, but he consistently exhibits a motivation to preserve an illusion.  He makes it clear that his entire reaction to Edna’s getting her own house is focused on creating an acceptable excuse for their community.  He “begged her to consider first, foremost, and above all else, what people would say” (116).   He never seems to care for Edna’s motivations. 