Did J.K. Rowling borrow heavily from J.R.R. Tolkien?

How rediculas!
You are seriously trying to compare two out of the seven books of HP to the three of LOTR.
The HP books don't just revolve around the Soucerer's Stone, where as LOTR just revolves around the ring. Therefore your comparison is irrelevant as it would only be valid if the HP books just consisted of the sourcerers stone.

Clearly this is a case of trying to find a connection where there isn't one.
And as for JK's writing, it manages to give a description that conjours images into the minds of the readers and instantly takes the reader to a fully formed world, anyone whom can create a magical world so full in every way is a better writer than most.
She manages to convey enough description for the readers imagination without sacrificing on the emotions. I've laughed out loud and cried in equal measure with HP and am proud to admitt so.

Just thought I'd pop by and point out how lame your comparison is :)

Drawing similarities between two authentic and likewise powerful bodies of fantasy lore is an ambitious task that should only be undertaken after finishing the entire series of both participants. Making a list of the similarities after reading only a few of the books and seeing the movies is both amateur and obnoxiously cocky. From your descriptions it is clear that you not only have a poor and "on-the-surface" grasp of the characters, but you also fail to discern what the role of each character is in the respective stories. I find your parallels between the sorcerer's stone and the Ring almost laughable; where one is an extremely minor artifact that is temporarily desired by Voldemort to regain physical strength (he later uses a must more pivotal method, which is crucial to the plot), the other is the driving force behind the entire series, controlling entire empires and the greatest minds in the land.
Similarities can be drawn from almost any book to another, especially in fantasy. There are many common themes that abound, for good reason; they are potent and useful themes that can be reused without complaint (a wise mentor, a powerful villain). Attempting to draw direct connections to some misguided conclusion (J.K. Rowling copied Tolkien, or the like) is comical. It shows not only your complete lack of respect for these two brilliant authors, but also your own misplaced confidence in your abilities to accurately analyze a work of fiction after reading only part of it. The next time you attempt to draw conclusions, be sure to save us all from your half-minded musings and save in a Word document tucked away deep in your hardrive.

Yes their appearances are very similar but both serve different purposes. ringwraiths are a metaphor for fear whereas the Dementors are a metaphor for depression confirmed by rowling herself. On another note, i will scream he someone else calls harry potter kid's fantasy, have you not read the deathly hallows? over 50 deaths, i would hardly call that children's fantasy. one last point stephen king has said he feels rowling deserves a place next to alice, frodo and dorothy, surely an experienced author himself would notice these similarities.

In literature when you "borrow" something you cite your source often after getting permission from the author from whom you 'borrowed'. When you plagiarize something you STEAL it as a scientist would steal a formula he had never invented, put your name to it and market it; and you then do your best to hide the fact using whatever clout in the media you can call upon to conceal the crime. That is the difference between 'borrowing' and 'stealing'.

Rowling belongs squarely to the latter and her so-called "borrowings" are so myriad it is extremely doubtful if a single important idea in Harry Potter came to her own mind.... "fully formed" or not. Little, her agent, and his team of hacks are likely involved in the systematic pillaging of the work of others. Why wouldn't they be?

If you admire this sort of thing, you might as well advertize for people to burgle your home, so that you can get their autographs. And if you are an aspiring writer who approves of plagiarizing having been duped into thinking it is merely 'borrowing' you might as well give up as you clearly accept that you have no rights whatever over your own work.

In the light of what is actually meant by THEFT, as above, the threadbare argument of 'precedents' is not only spurious in itself but unethical and inadmissable. And where is the real writer of inventive genius who would stoop so low as to use it? He/she wouldn't need to.

He liked the ideas he had come up with.

In my opinion the Dwarf (his name escapes me) was also given an extreme height bonus and became Hagred.

Also, Sam acts similarly to Ron, and the other two hobbits act like the Weasley twins! I watched Harry Potter before I watched Lord of the Rings and actually seeing them really shocked me, every character linked to another character in LOTRs. It is claimed that J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter on napkins while living out of her car... sounds like she just tweaked the characters and got rich quick!