I know you don't want to hear about later books, but there's a very good reason he keeps going back to the Dursley's. But, you don't find out til later. :-/ Sorry.

The Dursleys – I agree their treatment of Harry is awful, but I don’t think it crosses the line into being something that a 10 year old shouldn’t read about. Kids are surprisingly able to handle the fact that bad things happen in the world – especially if they’ve been helped to that realization in age appropriate ways as they grow up, rather than being sheltered from that knowledge completely. Look at Dickens’ writings – even A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist. I tend to think of those 2 books nostalgically and think kids should read/hear and enjoy them, but they contain harsh realities that are worse than anything the Dursleys did to poor Harry. And the Narnia stories have elements of school bullying, a very messed up family for Diggory Kirk including his Uncle Andrew, etc. I think kids can handle it, and not only that but I think some of that (exposure to the existence of real badness, even in places that should be safe) is good for them if properly handled.

In a book full of memorable and wonderfully drawn characters, I think Severus Snape may be Rowling’s best creation. It is so much fun hating him, but he’s not just a 2 dimensional villain.

As hinted at in the comment above, lots of things in early books that seem inexplicable, will bear fruit or be explained in later books. Also, lots of seemingly insignificant details in early books take on new significance in later books – either serious plot significance or else just fun déjà vu significance. Like the identity of the person who lent Hagrid the flying motorcycle that Hagrid rides in book 1. At the time it’s just a throwaway name, but in book 3 (which I’ll mention since you say you’ve already read it), the fact that “young Sirius Black” lent the motorcycle to Hagrid back in book 1 is an eye-opener and just another cool detail to furnish the story with. Same kind of thing with the Sorting Hat as you mention.

Rowling’s ability to avoid becoming formulaic or predictable, and to keep on surprising with plot twists, is impressive.

I had the same reaction to Quidditch – feeling like what the chasers and keepers did was for the most part extraneous and pointless. I enjoyed reading about the matches, etc. But Rowling doesn’t really “get” team sports and I think that’s reflected here. But in her defense, you can also write it off as “it’s a wizard thing – Muggles just wouldn’t get it.” And the point spread thing could, on rare occasion, come into play in a very lopsided game.

In all, as I was reading them in order, book 2 was plenty good enough to bring me back for more in book 3. But I did feel like it followed too closely the plot-steps of book 1 and feared “oh no, is every book going to follow this same pattern?” I loved the character Dobby, and Harry’s ploy to free him. The fact that Lucius Malfoy would plant the diary the way he did, took him up several notches on the villain scale for me. I still maintain that book 2 is probably the “weakest” (relatively speaking) of the 7 books. But in hindsight after reading the rest of the series and then re-reading book 2, it is one of the books that is most loaded with things that crop up in, or have significance bearing upon, the later books.

Forgot to comment on Lockhart. Yes, a hilarious and wonderfully written character. The youngest readers might miss some of the subtlety and not realize at first just how self-centered and shallow he really is. But even they will have caught on to what a vain fraud he is by the end.

I too would never have imagined casting Branagh (who I think of in his Shakesperean roles) for the part. But I think he does a great job of it in the movie. I am chuckling just thinking about it.

I enjoyed the flying car bit, beginning with the escape from the Dursleys, through Molly Weasley's outrage, Ron's not-so-good idea to use it as transportation to Hogwarts leading to the car crash into the whomping willow, the angry car disappearing into the forbidden forest to go wild/feral, Harry and Ron's inglorious re-entry into Hogwarts complete with being greeted by Snape, and Snape's outrage at their not being expelled. Also loved Ron's snapped wand and the part it played throughout the story, culiminating in Lockhart's backfiring memory spell.

(I write this not having read any comments yet ... sorry if I'm going back over territory here.)

I agree with you that the book did seem formulaic in the looking-for-something-under-Hogwarts plotline. Trust me, it gets better.

As for the Dursleys and their treatment of Harry ... it happens in kidlit a lot. It's actually a common device used to emphasize the differences between the world in which the hero is stuck and the possibility of the future. As for the trauma of reading such abusive behavior ... bear in mind your fairy tales. Cinderella? Hansel and Gretel?

The abuse is so far over the top as to be clearly fantastic.

I agree that Prof. Snape is both a jerk and a brilliant wizard. He's one of the best characters in the series, methinks. It's exactly that duality that makes him so. You want to hate him, but you know that he's important.

Lockhart is a well-written character, and Rowling clearly understood the "show, don't tell" concept. She shows it, and doesn't say it outright because she doesn't need to.

I would have liked to have seen Quidditch altered a bit. Yes, it does more or less come down to the Seekers. The rest is sort of a distraction while the Seekers go at it. At the same time, such a match would be quite an exercise in multi-tasking!

Lockhart is a well-written character, and Rowling clearly understood the "show, don't tell" concept. She shows it, and doesn't say it outright because she doesn't need to.

I agree completely. I kept thinking that. And like someone else said, I doubt that younger readers would get the subtle hints at Lochart's arrogance and true nature, until the end of the book.

As for Snape, I agree, he's a great character. Also, he is the only example of where the movies are influencing me as I go through the books. Each character is in my imagination, as described in the book, and pictured by me. Except Snape. I picture him as Alan Rickman's Snape. But that's OK. He's great. :-)

I was going to talk about this, but I decided I was probably relying on later books too much. I didn't think I was giving any spoilers since I wasn't referring to specific events, but still you may not want to read what I had to say.

Anyway, I liked #2. It's tons of fun and similar to the first one in the classic puzzle solving set up. Crying out for help in the end, the rebirth imagery, and the honorable stand Harry takes gives this story strong appeal.

I'd like to address the formulaic issue. All of her books follow a similar formula purposely. First of all, she is using the classic British mystery pattern. You can find the 10 rules for this genre somewhere on the internet. Basically, the villain shows up near the beginning (unbeknown to the reader), clues are subtle throughout the story, and there's the big reveal at the end. As the series continues, she finds new variations to make this pattern more interesting and satisfying.

Second, as others have said, the Dursley home is always near the beginning for an important reason that shall be revealed later.

Third, get used to the finding stuff underground thing for it will continue. Rowling studied a lot of alchemy before she wrote the books and if you understand that branch of esoteric knowledge, you'll get the idea of looking within the earth.

Fourth and finally, although more could be said, alchemy plays a huge role in the entire series. It influences everything from character's names to plot lines and themes (look up "Golden Snitch" sometime and you'll see what I mean). It's worth taking a look since it's a major part of western literature, from the Aurthurian legend to The Lord of the Rings.