First you have to phrase whatever your technology involves in a legal vernacular that is weirdly constraining and rarely maps well onto what the thing in question actually does. You always have the sense that you're playing a game of legal-mumbo-jumbo performance art more than actually describing an invention.
Second, you then have to interact with patent examiners. Some are great, many not so much. One I encountered was possibly the dumbest person I have ever met. Thick as two short planks with two extra short planks nailed on.
Third, the process just seems to go on and on. The examiner will make an objection or point to prior art. These actions may have little basis in logic or common sense, but they do seem to move pieces of paper from one box to another. Meetings occur with the examiner and/or their supervisor where your jaw will drop at how little anyone involved understands the technology being claimed.
You can cut through a lot of this with good legal counsel, but that is really just contributing to the gamesmanship of the whole process.
And, in the end, a patent is a pretty meaningless thing. A portfolio of defended patents might be an "Intellectual Property" asset (what an awful term). But so many people have to jump through the process just as a defensive act so they have a sliver of reassurance that using the novel thing they came up with will not lead to immediate cease-and-desist injunctions from IP-fortified competitors. What a collective waste of human creativity.