Yes. I am still not quite happy with this strange and erratic switch of focus. But I'll forgive the first one because it (as the one in book 4 did) shows how magic intrudes so horribly into the world of powerless muggles, which has grown to be a major sub-theme (if there is such a thing). The very casual way in which it can be arranged that the President of some country can "forget" to call, and remember to do it tomorrow instead, for example. Not to mention the obvious problems that the Death Eaters are causing. It also shows up in the third chapter, if obliquely: Dumbledore's wand by its mere presence subdues the Dursleys, who dare not express themselves as they would otherwise have done. It is problematic. Unavoidable, perhaps, but still. Interestingly, the forced (more overtly) lack of expression in Kreecher echoes this. In my mind, at least. It ties the two together.

Actually, my main problem with the alternative focalization stems from the way she used it in the first three books to keep information from the reader, making it read like a detective story. She moves away from the detective story pattern in the fourth and fifth books, and I suppose that while it is present to a certain degree in this book, it is also radically changed. Seeing as Harry is right for a change, for instance (which is confirmed even before he is right). Still.

Also, I forgive the second one because it shows Snape outside of Hogwarts, doing something good that looks bad. I love that. It makes me giddy.

In the third chapter, it is interesting to see how close the papers are to the truth about the prophecy. I suppose one narrative pattern fits another. We also get the rift between Dumbledore and Scrimgeour, and inferi are introduced.

It also occurs to me that Dumbledore's "we have corresponded, of course" to Petunia means something other than what Harry attributes to it (shock) -- as is revealed in book 7, I think?