And the language of the HP world seems to lack any non-insulting way of referring to the non-magical majority. I'll be interested to see how (or if) JK addresses that in the following books.(Grab)

Maybe someone should get on to JK and suggest she brings in the term "Mudcat" as a non-insulting way of referring to the non-magical majority. And tell her we love her.

About the Dursleys. I'd have preferred it if she'd approached the host family issue differently myself. Have them being confused and apprehensive, and frightened of magic and so forth, but basically on Harry's side, and unable to really deal with him. And I think that would have made for a much more interesting set-up, with just as much opportunity for a bit of slapstick.

More plausible too. After all there's no law, or even social expectation in England that a family is bound to adopt and care for a foundling, just because he's related to them. There's an inconsistency in the Dursley's being willing to undertake the responsibility. And it's out of line with the precedents in history/mythology, such as King Arthur (or Superman).

But that's how she wrote it, and it was her first book, and it works so far as most people are concerned, I was glad they didn't soften it for the film, because it would have thrown things out of kilter.

The interesting possibility would if JK decides to have the Dursley's get into religious fundamentalism in future books, as their way of justifying their attitude towards Harry...(And that would tie in with being willing to raise him as well.) That would really put the cat among the pigeons.