A recent exchange between Allinson (2019) and Abrams (2019) on the current state of revolution theory rests on the assumption that the generational, backward-looking view of revolution studies is also a fruitful way of thinking of the field's present and future. We argue, in contrast, that while a generational approach has important benefits, it also contains shortcomings that may lead the future of revolution studies in less fruitful directions. We examine where an overreliance on generational thinking has led us, provide an exploratory sketch of how we can begin to move beyond generational thinking, and imagine a new future for the study of revolution.